1982-07-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, if you dial 215 563-1708 you will reach the Canadian government office of tourism in Philadelphia. Then a recording will provide you with the toll free numbers for travel information in Nova Scotia, Quebec or Ontario. There is no mention of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick or Newfoundland. If the purpose of this recording is to advise American tourists about vacation destinations in eastern Canada, then the provinces of P.E.I., New Brunswick and Newfoundland should be mentioned. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House instruct the minister responsible for tourism to give CGOT officials a lesson in Canadian geography by advising them that there are three other provinces in eastern Canada, namely, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the member to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PIPELINES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, despite repeated calls from the people of the Mackenzie District to allow preconstruction work to start on the Norman Wells-Zama Lake pipeline so that local people can take advantage of the jobs and business opportunities, something that will not take place if the NEB schedule is adhered to, the government refuses to sanction work this winter. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That Interprovincial Pipelines Ltd. be authorized to start preconstruction work on the Norman Wells-Zama Lake pipeline forthwith.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the member to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, housing starts in Canada during the second quarter this year were half of those during the same quarter a year ago. Starts during the first half of the year were only 62,293. Despite this, the minister responsible for housing says he still expects total starts to reach 180,000, a figure most experts feel is vastly overinflated, while they predict starts will not exceed 150,000. I move, seconded by the member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the minister responsible for housing impress upon his colleagues in cabinet the need for immediate positive measures to be taken to aid the unsound housing industry.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the member to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday, in order to make the first CF-18 feel welcome and wanted when it rolled off the assembly line, two Hercules transport aircraft and one executive jet carried some 90 DND and government officials from Ottawa to St. Louis, Missouri, for a party; as well, another Hercules carried the Air Command Band from Winnipeg to St. Louis. In light of this blatant waste of tens of thousands of taxpayers' dollars at a time when the government is supposed to be slashing waste and is restricting pay increases to, among others, Armed Forces members, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):

July 29, 1982
That this House instruct the President of the Treasury Board to take the Minister of National Defence aside, slap his wrist and give him a lesson in responsible spending.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the member to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, two convicted murderers who should have died after their first murder and who were serving life sentences in Archambault have struck again: as a result, three more productive Canadians are dead- butchered in cold blood. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That this House urge the government to reinstate capital punishment for persons convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt of killing another human being.
How many more innocent persons are going to die before this government will take action?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the member to move this motion ?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, today's Toronto Star reports that Liberal Members of Parliament are being instructed to spread cheery stories of good economic news to counter the growing stories of economic disaster which Liberal policies have produced for millions of Canadians. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That this House inform the Minister of Employment and Immigration that the minister's announcement of a $300 million job-creation package is devoted 97 per cent to ridings held by Liberal Members of Parliament; that the minister and this unworthy Liberal government be informed that this type of blatant patronage spells bad news for democracy in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the member to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that senior CBC executives are flying off next month to Cape Canaveral to watch the Anik launching on the sunny beaches of Florida, despite the fact that they will not be able to get within one half mile of the launch and may in fact have to watch it on television; in view of the fact that these flights are not defensible when the budgets for research and station operations for the CBC are being cut to the bone across Canada; and since there are communities in Canada such as Atlin which could receive CBC radio for a cost comparable to that of these flights-and surely the right to radio signals is more important than a pork-barrel trip to Florida-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That the President of the Treasury Board release the report on domestic and international air travel of public servants immediately, since it has been completed and in his office for over a week now, and that he introduce guidelines that are sufficiently strict to stop flights that are not of urgent necessity, and to design guidelines that will make it clear that letters and the telephone are to be used for communication, and wherever reasonably possible the railroad or bus lines are to be used to attend meetings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the member to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSAL THAT HOUSE OBSERVE MINUTE OF SILENCE FOR WAR VICTIMS IN BEIRUT-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a proposal similar to the one made by the member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko), who tried, unsuccessfully, to obtain the unanimous consent of the House. I think it is shocking that some hon. members should waste their time and energy on defending the comforts and conveniences of this House and fighting against wage restraint, while thousands of innocent people, children who could be our own, and teenagers and women are being struck down as a result of military attacks among civilized people, as is presently the case in Beirut. All conventional warfare is cruel, whether it takes place at the front or on the battlefield. But this is happening in the middle of a city, and children are being traumatized and perhaps crippled for the rest of their lives. I think this is absolutely barbaric. I therefore wish to propose to my colleagues, and I hope to obtain the unanimous consent of the House, that at the end of the oral question period, the House observe one minute of silence to express its respect for, and
July 29, 1982

especially its sympathy with these innocent victims, a minute during which we should reflect on ways of assisting and comforting them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion by the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, the C.D. Howe Institute, in a departure from its normal political reticence, has said that the main problem in Canada since the early 1970s has been federal leadership mismanagement of the economy. The latest budget is described as an "abysmal stewardship report", and Institute fears that Canada may have "reached a point where it is impossible for its leaders to secure the cooperation needed to make a positive response to the country's economic predicament". The commentary continued that "in a non-governmental organization such performance would lead to a replacement of its leadership". Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis):
That the Liberal Party replace its leadership, and the government retire wornout cabinet ministers by introducing fresh faces with new economic policies to give a positive direction to the country and hope to the Canadian people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the member to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LOUIS RIEL
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish publicly to thank all those Members of Parliament and Senators who responded affirmatively to my letter to grant Louis Riel a posthumous pardon. Many MPs, from all three parties, consider such action appropriate to remove a blot from the Canadian system of justice and at the same time view with compassion the difficulties experienced by our political leaders during the early formation of the integral parts of our nation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I again move, seconded by the two original seconders, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) and the hon. member for Cochrane-
Oral Questions
Superior (Mr. Penner), and I do this with greater certainty that members from all parties wish to support this motion:
That this House grant Louis Riel a posthumous pardon for the crime of high treason.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the member to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, I will put my question to the President of the Treasury Board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Peterson:: Where is Joe Clark?


Mr. Smith:: Where is Crosbie and where is Nielsen?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Obviously Liberal members opposite do not like having it pointed out that their cabinet ministers are away. But I will proceed by putting my question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Yesterday the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced a job-creation package. He designated 33 constituencies for what he called "development component". What does the government mean by development component in dollar terms? Also, would the minister explain how it is that 32 out of 33 constituencies so designated are represented by Liberal members, even though there is high unemployment in many other parts of the country?


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member's question referred to the 33 constituencies that were designated, the hon. member ought to know that these constituencies were designated on the basis of a 12 per cent labour surplus throughout the country. The constituencies are located in the Maritimes, and obviously, the hon. member is not talking about her colleague from St. John's West, whose

July 29, 1982
Oral Questions
constituency was necessarily part of this group. The government wants to alleviate the extremely high rate of unemployment in these constituencies, and 1 may point out that the 12 per cent rate will be applied next year and perhaps other constituencies will also be designated as part of this group.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I see that the minister has now come into the Elouse so that we do not have to have a backbencher answering a question on a major expenditure program of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The minister will know that the selection of these constituencies is not based on the unemployment figures that are put out monthly by Statistics Canada; they are based on a formula that is drawn up in his office.


CONSTITUENCY ALLOCATIONS FOR JOB CREATION
Flora Isabel MacDonald: My
supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Will he guarantee that the constituency allocations for job creation to be announced next week will be significantly higher, greater than the amounts allocated last year in those constituencies where there has been a substantial recent increase in unemployment, such as areas in northern Ontario and the interior of British Columbia?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me, hearing the answer given by the parliamentary secretary, that he showed far more intelligence and sensitivity to the plight of the unemployed than was displayed in the question put forward by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I would say that the kind of arrogance displayed in her preamble just showed how serious the hon. member is in asking respectable questions of members on this side.
The formula is very clearly outlined. We take the labour surplus rates as they apply to every constituency. Furthermore a factor has been built into the calculations to take into account deterioration of unemployment in those areas. For instance, the province of British Columbia will be receiving three times the amount of employment money that it received last year, and as far as 1 can recall there is not one Liberal elected as yet in that province.


An hon. Member:: There never will be, either.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that with the way he is going with regard to unemployment there
will not be any Liberals elected in British Columbia or in many other parts of the country, if he and the Prime Minister have the courage to go to the country and put their policies to the test.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


QUERY RESPECTING NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED WITHOUT INSURANCE BENEFITS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said in his announcement that the special response feature of the program will be most useful to those people who will have their unemployment insurance benefits exhausted. Will he now give us the estimate of those Canadians whose unemployment insurance benefits will be exhausted during the coming fall and winter months? So far he has refused to do so, but he must now have an estimate of that group of Canadians since he has attached a $41 million figure to it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth pointing out, again in response to the hon. member who seems to be trying to indicate that we are not concerned about the plight of the unemployed in the country-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The million and a half.


Lloyd Axworthy: -that it was her government when it was in power that cancelled all direct employment programs of the Government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Lloyd Axworthy: If we had followed through with the position taken by that government, there would be no programs of any kind for the unemployed of Canada. The fact of the matter is that what we are trying to do by establishing the special response fund is to be prepared and to take into account the kinds of concerns which people have, rather than ignoring them, as obviously her government did when it was in power.


FORMULA USED IN ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO CONSTITUENCIES
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Would the minister explain to the House why the additional funds under the development component of the program he announced yesterday would be allocated on the basis of some kind of inexplicable labour surplus formula and not on the basis of the real unemployment rate, averaged over the last number of years, as supplied by Statistics Canada? While he is at it, perhaps he could tell us who devised this hairy-scary formula which provides funding for only Liberal constituencies?
July 29, 1982


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would not necessarily expect the hon. member to understand the concept of labour surplus rates which has been used in the country for generations and for decades. It simply means that that is a formula which is applied because it is the one that can be allocated on a constituency basis and one which affects every single member of the House regardless of party. They receive an allocation based upon their constituencies, and that is why we used the labour surplus formula. I would be very glad to try to spell it out for the hon. member in a clear explanation so that he will not continue in his own confusion.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps the minister might try to explain it to those constituencies where there is high unemployment such as St. John's East, which will receive no funding and has a concentration of 40 per cent student unemployment right now.


CANADA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FUNDING
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is on his feet, perhaps he could explain how it is that the Canada Community Development Program in the past year provided an average of $540,000 for 148 Liberal constituencies, $188,000 for 101 Conservative constituencies, and $162,000 for 33 NDP constituencies?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: If the old pork-barrel is not alive and well, perhaps he could explain just exactly what is at work here.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for St. John's East is once again demonstrating how insensitive the Conservative Party is to the economic reality of the country. That reality is that there are many regions of this country where there is continuing, chronic high unemployment. Many of them happen to be centred in the eastern part of the country. Because they know the Liberal Party respects and responds to the concerns of those who are unemployed and those who are poor, that is the basis by which they elect Liberals and by which we allocate the funds, according to those who have the greatest need.


SUNCOR CORPORATION-APPLICATION OF GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT PROGRAM
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday we learned that the Suncor Corporation in Canada will not only receive $35.5 million in tax cuts as a benefit from the people of Canada, but the company also announced a new pricing policy, namely, that while its workers' salaries will be
Oral Questions
held down to 6 per cent increases, it will be permitted to have profits-that is to say prices-at historic levels.
Will the Minister admit that with this announcement of the first agreement with a private sector firm under the new controls program, the Government of Canada is now making its policy clear that while workers' incomes will be held down in Canada to increases not exceeding 6 per cent, the Government of Canada will permit corporations to attain historic profit levels and therefore historic price increases?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not agree with the reasoning put forward by the hon. member.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister cannot get away with that kind of an answer. We want an announcement and clarification of government policy.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON PRICES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell the House of Commons and the people of Canada what the government policy is with respect to prices? Is the government going to permit corporations to go well beyond the 6 per cent price increase, and will it be saying to them, in that context, that they can have what the government is calling historic profit levels? If it is the latter, who is to decide what those profit levels are? Is each company to be setting its own definition and, if not, who is?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Leader of the New Democratic Party takes objection to an investment of $690 million, half of which is in southern Ontario and half in Alberta. I have negotiated with the company on this particular subject for over a year. Following the budget of last June 28 we have added a condition to the tax concession put forward in order to reach this agreement. We have added the requirement that the company adheres, within its own operations, to the 6 per cent and 5 per cent guidelines.
As far as prices are concerned, the company has also agreed that it will keep its prices in line in terms of the reduction in costs that will result from lower wage increases than may have otherwise taken place, and bearing in mind also the historic profit situation of the company.
As far as the general question is concerned, the Minister of Finance has indicated in the House that he expected to be able to have a release soon which would spell out the government's position both in regard to wages and prices, in relation to companies having dealings with the Government of Canada.


COMPANY PROFIT MARGINS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, so far, since this inequitable program was introduced, we have learned that Bell telephone rates will not be held down to 6 per cent increases, that rent increases for pensioners will not be

July 29, 1982
Oral Questions
held down by CMHC, and that oil price increases will go well beyond 6 per cent. Yet this government has the nerve to tell the working men and women in this country that their wages have to be held down to 6 per cent. That is completely unjust, and every Canadian knows it. When can we expect to get a clear statement from the government on what private sector firms will be permitted in terms of price increases? Will they be allowed to maintain historic profit margins, which means historic price increases and, if so, who is to determine the criteria of what an historic profit margin is to be?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, again I am surprised that the Leader of the New Democratic Party would rather have people unemployed than being employed, with the possibility of having wage increases to the extent of 6 per cent and 5 per cent over the next two years.


John Edward Broadbent: What sheer hypocrisy!


Marc Lalonde: The hypocrisy to which the Leader of the New Democratic Party refer is the hypocrisy of his own party on this whole issue. His party has been talking out of both sides of its mouth consistently on this issue.
As far as CMHC is concerned, the hon. member has made a statement without knowing the facts. There has been no decision. As far as Bell Canada is concerned, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has made a statement without knowing the facts, because there has been no decision made in that regard. 1 invite him to wait for the decisions and then make his judgments on what the situation will really be.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In light of the latest statistics published by the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia which indicate that over half the industry is down and over half the forest workers in British Columbia are unemployed, and in light of the fact that these statistics are even worse in the rest of the country, can the minister tell me what the new program he announced just yesterday, which has an emphasis on areas with more chronic unemployment, will do to help the forest industry in British Columbia and the rest of the country?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the program we have is obviously not designed for just one sector of the industry. As we well know, the enormous downturn in employment in the forest industry is caused by the drying up of international markets,
and particularly by the enormous reduction in housing construction in the United States where about 80 per cent of our lumber products are sold. What we are trying to do through the measures announced in the job-creation program yesterday is allocate those measures to areas where there are chronic and continuing high unemployment rates, which is the definition we apply to development areas, but we are also applying substantially large amounts of job creation money to those areas which have recently been hit by downturns or layoffs.
As I pointed out in answer to a previous question, the allocation to the hon. member's province of British Columbia has tripled in one year in order to respond to the very serious problems faced by workers in those industries, and it is our hope that that substantial addition of job-creation money in that province and in other areas will be of assistance to workers in that industry.


FOREST-RENEWAL PROGRAM
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the difficulties the minister has described have very deleterious effects not only on the industry and tens of thousands of workers but also on regions, municipalities, towns and cities which base their whole economies on forest-related industries. Included are small towns and whole regions in central and northern British Columbia as well as in the rest of the country. A previous program the minister undertook was intended to help this sector as well as the fishing and mining industries. The forest-renewal program has now been recognized as an object failure. Does the minister still have any faith in this program and, if so, would he be prepared to sit down with industrial leaders to discuss ways and means to take the bureaucrats and the red tape out of the system so that at least some workers can be employed in the crucial wood-converting industries in a way which would make an investment in the future of our country?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the application of Section 38 programs is not a failure but is now going ahead. It was only a week ago Monday that I was in British Columbia and met with members of both the management side of the forest industry as well as officials of the woodworkers' unions to determine how we could work and co-ordinate our activities and efforts in a combined enterprise under Section 38. They have committed themselves to co-operate with me. We are working on the details and, because this program must be delivered, in large part, through the offices of the provincial government, we are now attempting to get the provincial government to undertake further actions to expand and further develop projects under Section 38. Some 16 projects have been approved under that program, and people already going to work on those projects. It is our hope, because of these meetings and because we are coming together under this new program, that we will still be able to expand employment opportunities substantially under Section 38.
July 29, 1982


DIRECT JOB-CREATION PROGRAM-APPLICATION IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I wonder if he understands that a solid manufacturing base is necessary if this country is to offer meaningful employment rather than just temporary employment, and that this manufacturing base is situated mostly in southern Ontario and is experiencing massive unemployment. For example, in Hamilton, Ontario, unemployment in the last year alone has increased by over 100 per cent.
Why have these sectors and these cities been ignored in the minister's new assistance programs? More important, why have they been ignored by incentive programs? Why are the programs designated by ridings rather then by cities or regions? Finally, what does the minister and the government intend to do with all the newly unemployed people in southern Ontario in cities like Hamilton and Dunnville and other areas in southern Ontario hardest hit by unemployment?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question simply is not correct. The fact of the matter is that we do very much recognize the problems affecting the manufacturing areas of the southern part of Ontario, parts of Quebec and other areas where the manufacturing industry is most active. In my own department alone we have introduced a work-sharing program under which over 3,700 agreements have been signed. This has averted close to 60,000 lay-offs, many of them in Ontario and Quebec, and kept manufacturing plants open. I think this demonstrates very clearly the measures we are taking in those areas to try to help that part of the country in this very difficult time.
However, the major commitment is being made through contracts being signed in export markets to provide further work. Major assistance is being given by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to the automobile industry under ILAP to provide further incentives. The automobile industry is now beginning to regain its health.
I do not have sufficient time to refer to all the measures we have taken; however, I can assure the hon. member that not only is this government responsive, but it is also undertaking a wide range of programs to help industries in the region to which the hon. member refers, during this very difficult recession.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I call the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Roland Penner, the Attorney General of the province of Manitoba.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions MINES AND MINING


SERVICE OF EVICTION NOTICES ON HOME RENTERS IN ELSA, Y.T.
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member for Yukon is not here this afternoon to bring the concern to which I will refer in my question to the attention of the House. However, in his absence I would like to ask a question of the Minister of State for Mines.
Many of the residents of the town of Elsa, Yukon, have lived in company houses for more than 35 years, but they will be evicted from their homes on August 31 because of the temporary closure of the United Keno Hill mines. Also 200 employees and their families could be affected. Could the minister inform the House what steps her department is taking to avoid another Uranium City-like evacuation of Elsa, since most of the employees have indicated that they wish to remain in their home community? Specifically, is the minister's task force on one-industry towns prepared to visit Elsa-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I invite the hon. member to go to his point.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Is the minister's task force on one-industry towns prepared to visit the townsite and make recommendations so that temporary mine closure does not mean the expulsion of these people from Elsa?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to respond to the hon. member's question because this is a problem that is very typical of one-industry towns across the north.
The task force has completed its visits, unfortunately, and is now preparing its report, so it will no longer be making visits to areas, but I will be happy to refer this problem to the task force. In the meantime, I suggest to the hon. member that he examine the make-work projects we have under way, and perhaps we can design one to provide the kind of job creation that is necessary in this town.
I remind the hon. member that the reason for the reduction in the work force under the stand-by system is that the price of silver has dropped to $8, and production costs must be accounted for. A $13.50 price is absolutely essential if production is to continue. In the meantime, I suggest that he sit down with our officials to design a program which would keep some of those people working in the community. We would be happy to assist him.


REQUEST THAT ACTION BE TAKEN TO PREVENT EVICTIONS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I too, would call the attention of the minister to the announcement by her seat mate that $300 million spent for employment projects includes $41 million for "direct job-creation funds over the fall and winter to communities which experience sudden lay-offs". Will the Minister of State for Mines take the
19812

July 29, 1982
Oral Questions
responsibility for co-ordination of efforts by her seat mate and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to ensure that these people are not evicted from their homes, that they will also have work which will last them the winter, and that they will get a fair share of that $41 million?


Judith A. Erola: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they will get their fair share, but I would like to call upon the hon. member for Yukon and ask for his assurance of co-operation in this matter as well.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Normand Lapointe (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In the June 28 budget, a fund of $300 million was set aside for direct job creation. My question is this: will the Government of Canada be able to include Quebec municipalities in the program, since the federal government needs the Quebec government's consent to help the municipalities. Therefore, will the municipalities be able to apply for the Canada Community Development Program?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the government of the province of Quebec is preventing municipalities from receiving funds from the federal government for job creation. I am trying to get the Quebec government to change its position, but meanwhile, nothing can be done.


DIRECT JOB-CREATION PROGRAM-POSITION OF NORTHERN ONTARIO
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, concerns the discriminatory direct job-creation program. I would like to point out that in this program about which we are asking questions, there is nothing for Ontario. Therefore, would the minister explain to the House why, in northern Ontario, no special funds were allocated, where there is currently the same percentage of unemployed in the native, disabled and youth groups, and plant and mine shutdowns, as in the chosen constituencies?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, once again a member of the Conservative opposition is showing that he does not want to become confused by the facts. The fact is that the province of Ontario, under the program announced yesterday, will be receiving over $37 million, which is double its allocation of last year. When the hon. member says that the province of Ontario will be receiving nothing, he is obviously not considering the facts.
In addition, those constituencies in northern Ontario will also be included in the special allocation that we give to native groups and organizations to undertake a number of major housing and resource projects. Again, those funds are over and above the normal constituency allocation. But I would suggest, as I said in the House yesterday, that it would probably be much sounder and wiser for members of the opposition to wait until they have actually received letters from me detailing how much they will receive per constituency before they start speculating on the matter, a week in advance.


DESIGNATION OF COUNTIES IN NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, deals with the announcement yesterday of the Canada Community Development Project funding which, in New Brunswick, only went to those constituencies which are held by Liberals. The fact is that the executive assistant to the minister said that the designated basis will be a 12 per cent surplus in manpower, and the minister himself has stated that this is the government's response to sensitivity and the plight of the unemployed in those regions. The minister will know that in New Brunswick, the counties of York, Sunbury and Queens, as well as Albert County, all have surpluses of manpower in excess of that of Madawaska and Victoria counties. Will the minister tell me and the people how he will demonstrate his sensitivity to the people in those counties who are so obviously the recipients of this blatant pork-barrelling policy which the government has now implemented?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, once again I think the hon. members of the opposition are beginning to count up the numbers before they are even informed as to how much will be given to their individual constituencies. Those constituencies mentioned by the hon. member will be receiving a substantial increase in their allocations. What we are trying to do through the development stream of that program is to take a four-year average of labour surplus rates, which denotes those areas which have had chronic, long-term unemployment, and apply the development concept so that they can break that cycle, for heaven's sake, and move into an area where they can begin to develop long-term, permanent employment. It in no way prevents, inhibits or changes the continuing allocation per riding which will go to every other constituency in the country, which has generally been increased by almost double what it was last year. In many cases it has gone up much further than that, based on the deterioration of the unemployment rate. But we are using the measurement of a labour surplus rate-


An hon. Member:: You are using a pork-barrel rate.


Lloyd Axworthy: -which was properly registered in employment centres over a four-year average in order to make that determination. 1 would only say to members of the opposition
July 29, 1982

that, rather than engaging in this kind of baiting, what they should be considering is how they can put their efforts to work in their ridings to help the unemployed.


DESIGNATION OF COMMUNITIES IN ALBERTA
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The national energy policy totally destroyed the local economies of Bonnyville, Grande Prairie, Swan Hills, Beaver Lodge, Drayton Valley, Two Hills, Vermilion, Lloydminster, Brooks and Nisku, all communities in Alberta. Recognizing that there is to be an increase in the CCDP funding to each constituency, would the minister consider targeting those communities devastated by the national energy policy under the development component of his announcement yesterday?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is too learned and wise a member of this House to try to pass off that particular premise. As he well knows, the changes in the energy industry are worldwide in their impact, and-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: -the United States of America, which does not have the kind of enlightened energy policy that we brought in, is facing an even more substantial downturn in its industry at the present time. But what we are prepared to do through our employment programs is to take a look at those areas, regions and communities in the country which are facing downturns in their economic or industrial base and try to provide additional assistance to them.
The reason we kept the additional $41 million in reserve was to provide a special response fund so that we could respond to those areas which are facing both immediate problems and need that kind of assistance. I would obviously be very glad, as I have been in the past, to talk to the hon. member for Athabasca concerning the problems in his riding.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the present projected lay-offs for the Interprovincial Steel and Pipe Company in western Canada are now approaching 1,000, and since the minister met with the company and the union which made a number of recommendations to him, and since they informed him that just for Saskatchewan alone the lay-offs in Regina mean 2,000 more direct and indirect jobs, which is equivalent to 54,000 lay-offs in Ontario and Quebec, can the minister tell us what he will do in response to the recommendations made to him by the company and by the union, and when will he meet with them again to deliver that response?
Oral Questions


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, recently I had a very useful meeting with the management and representatives of the workers of Ipsco in Regina, and I have been working in conjunction with other departments on the points in their brief. A number of the points deal with matters of energy policy and tariff policy and, as I said to them, I hope to be meeting with representatives of both management and the union before too long to discuss a response to their brief.


REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF TARIFF REDUCTIONS FROM STEEL IMPORTS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, Ipsco and three other Canadian companies have already filed suit against South Korea, South Africa, Belgium and Luxembourg for anti-dumping practices. Since the government failed to make any representations to those countries before our steel industry was damaged, while it is cosying up to the military dictator from South Korea who will visit this country shortly, will it make representations, demands upon, or present ultimatums to the President of South Korea to the effect that that country will no longer receive a 6 per cent tariff reduction for its steel products that are brought into Canada, and will the same condition be made to apply to all other countries that are dumping in Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to draw the hon. member's representations to the attention of the Minister of Finance. With respect to the anti-dumping investigation, I am sure the officials of my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, will want to pursue that matter as vigorously and actively as possible.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday the minister announced a $300 million direct employment program for the coming winter. In view of the urgency of providing these jobs during the fall and winter months, and the time that is required by Indian bands ana municipalities to prepare applications for the community development program, can the minister tell us when application forms will be made available and how soon the projects will be able to start this fall?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, application forms will be available by the middle of August. We hope to have all the applications in on the termination date, September 30, and after that the

July 29, 1982
Oral Questions
projects would start immediately upon approval. I should point out to the hon. member that in the case of native bands and organizations, we are prepared to accept early applications so that we can get the projects started during the building season. If he would bring those applications to my attention, we will respond accordingly.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture regarding the need for prompt payment in Canada's total livestock industry. I am sure the minister will be acutely aware of the need for this in the aftermath of the McIntyre sale yard collapse in southwestern Ontario that has had repercussions all over western Canada, as have other failures. Can the minister indicate if he is now preparing some badly needed federal legislation that will require prompt payment of all Canadian livestock accounts throughout the country?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the bankruptcy he refers to took place in southwestern Ontario. One of my constituents was a very heavy loser in that bankruptcy. We are looking at ways and means of overcoming this. I am sure the hon. member remembers that when the Bank Act was amended, strong representations were made that we should not go that far but should only amend it to protect farmers or producers when a processor or meat packer went bankrupt. It appears now that the amendment should have been much broader. The hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex suggested a broader amendment to the Bank Act at that time, and he is making representations again along the same lines as the hon. member opposite.
I understand that the effects of this bankruptcy are widespread and not confined to southwestern Ontario but extend to the province of Alberta and other parts of Canada as well.


PETRO-CANADA COMPATIBILITY OF POLICY WITH INCOME-CONTROL PROGRAM
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Considering the fact that the minister supported the plan to restrict wage increases to 6 and 5 per cent, I wonder whether he is aware that on the basis of government recommendations regarding controls, Petro-Canada is recommending rent increases of 25 per cent for its dealers. If so, could he inform the House how he intends to prove that the corporation's policy is compatible with the government's objectives?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the guidelines for Crown corporations, including Petro-Canada, are that during the next two years, salaries of corporation employees may not be increased by more than 6 and 5 per cent. As for the point raised directly by the hon. member for Joliette, 1 must say that I am not aware of the existence of the increases to which he is referring. If he has any specific cases to refer to my attention, I should be happy to forward them to the corporation, and I would then ask the corporation's administrators to submit a report, which I will be happy to divulge to the hon. member.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and it is supplementary to the question of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal who finally showed his true colours. In devising the program, did the minister hold any discussions with the Government of New Brunswick to try to persuade it to supplement his very positive response, or are we to continue to see that government just wring its hands and shed crocodile tears, as did the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, for those areas of chronic high unemployment?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that it is our hope and intention that, at this time of very serious difficulty in the Canadian economy, we can recruit and enlist the co-operation of the provincial governments. Not many of them have been too forthcoming in their efforts thus far. It is important to continue to try to bring them on board so that not only can we respond to the immediate employment problems in New Brunswick but also come to grips with the longer-term issue of restraining inflationary pressures in order to bring interest rates down, and thereby provide a base for long-term job creation in Canada.


INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The minister must be aware of the need for a strong Canadian voice on the International Joint Commission when such crucial issues as the clean-up of the Great Lakes, the controversial ice boom in Lake Erie, and other water issues involving the boundary between Canada and the United States are being discussed. There are three American commissioners on the IJC and at present only two representing Canada. How long must this 20-
July 29, 1982

month delay continue before the third Canadian position on the 1JC is filled? How much longer must we wait?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is an important appointment that has to be made. I regret the delay that has taken place, and I hope the appointment will be made soon.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration regarding the development component of his recently announced program which is, as I understand it, the component intended to deal with long-term solutions to chronic unemployment.
Is it just a coincidence that of the 33 ridings that qualify for that component, 32 are represented by Liberals? Is it just a coincidence that of the ridings that qualify, more than half are represented by parliamentary secretaries and ministers, or is the minister finally coming clean with Canadians about the cause and effect relationship between how you vote and what you get, to the effect that the longer you vote Liberal, the poorer you become?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if there is any correlation at all between those figures, it simply shows that the people in Canada who are most in need know which party to vote for because it will best respond to their needs.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. 1 wonder if the minister would consider establishing a three-member all-party group to travel to Beirut in the very near future to discuss with our ambassador, and all the involved parties in the very serious situation in Lebanon, the nature of the kind of responses that the Canadian government and the Canadian Parliament could make in this situation, and report back to the minister and the House.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think I could not take such a proposal as a serious way of responding to the problems of the Middle East at the present time. There is no lack of knowledge of the facts. We are well acquainted with the facts. The problems are amongst the parties in the Middle East. The United States is
Committee Reports
conducting mediation efforts with respect to the problem in Beirut itself. Most countries of the world feel that we are better advised to await the resolution of that problem before proceeding with initiatives with respect to the longer-term problems of the Middle East.


PETITIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Wednesday, July 28, 1982, and that he finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, this being a Thursday I wonder if I might ask the government House leader as to the disposition of business for the balance of this week, next week and as far as he wishes to prophesy.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-85 today, and Bill C-124 starting tomorrow and for next week.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, further to its Order of Reference of Wednesday, March 18, 1981, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence formed the subcommittee on Canada's Relations with Latin America and the Caribbean. Pursuant to the same Order of Reference, your committee previously tabled an interim report on December 8 of last year. Your committee has continued its consideration of this subject, and, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, of tabling, in both official languages, the committee's eleventh report which deals specifically with the Caribbean and Central America.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

July 29, 1982
Public Accounts HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES


TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, after I met with the National Advisory Board on UFFI, I promised to table in the House a document containing a summary of the commitments we made at this meeting, which took place last weekend. Therefore, since I was unable to take part in the debate the other day on Bill C-109,1 would like to take advantage of my first opportunity since then to table this exchange of correspondence, in both official languages.

Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra) moved: that the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House on Friday, July 18, 1980 be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is somewhat of an historic debate today. I am sorry to see that the former chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), has left the House because what I am going to say today and what others may contribute will be very important to the progress of the power which Parliament can exercise over the affairs of the country.
I say it is an historic debate because it is the first debate, in my ten years in this House, on a motion to concur in a report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We have had many reports. In fact, during this session I have tabled 16 reports as chairman. Some have been concurred in without debate. Three were substantial reports containing specific recommendations. Some took the form of a housekeeping report where, unfortunately, we had to come back to the House for a motion and concurrence to cover some expenses- minor at that-of the committee in sending representatives to conferences in other parts of Canada.
It is also historic, Mr. Speaker, in that it gives an opportunity for this House to carry out a recommendation contained in a booklet called "Improving Accountability: Canadian Public Accounts Committees and Legislative Auditors". This was a study done by Mr. John J. Kelly and Hugh R. Hanson, sponsored by the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation of which the former Auditor General of Canada, Mr. J. J. MacDonell, is chairman. This report contains some 69 recommendations applying to public accounts committees, legislatures, etc., and I think it is important for this debate that I read recommendation No. 33, which is as follows:
Legislatures set aside time to debate the reports of public accounts committees at least annually.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, this will be the first of many debates on reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
I should also refer to the other changes which have occurred in the operation of the Public Accounts Committee over the ten years I have been a member of this House and that committee. In the early days the committee was very restricted in the research it could do. In fact, it did not even have a fulltime research officer and members met with the chairman to determine what subjects would be followed. The committee then held its meetings and we took the Auditor General's report after it was referred to us because it was not an automatic procedure in those days; we had to wait for a reference from a minister in the House. Evidence was heard and eventually, toward the end of the session, the clerk of the committee sat down and wrote an extensive, if not exhaustive, report which touched on every aspect of the evidence heard by the committee. That report was tabled in the House and it contained no recommendations. It was never debated or, as far as I know, even acted upon.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the committee has two full-time research officers provided by the Library of Parliament. One of them is a chartered accountant who has served the committee long and well; the other is an economist who has served the committee for less time but just as well.
We examine each Auditor General's report now, Mr. Speaker, as soon as it is tabled in the House, because we have an automatic reference under the Standing Orders of this House. After consultation with the Auditor General we decide which parts of that report are going to be considered the most important and which will therefore be considered and examined in detail by the committee.
That is a very important step because the Auditor General has pointed out instances to the committee where his office has spent $1 million worth of time conducting an audit and the results of that audit never get examined by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. That is not to say that the committee is not interested in things the Auditor General says. But it is obvious that the Auditor General's report is so extensive and the committee's time is so limited that we have to choose the highlights of the Auditor General's report. Because we cannot see it all, we have good research staff and we have a plan of action so we know what we are going to study and approximately when we are going to study it, we are in a position to make much more effective reports to the House of Commons.
It is interesting to note that the report we are debating today was tabled in the House on July 18, 1980, just over two years ago. The committee has considered that its reports should have some attention from the House. We have follow-up procedures so that if we do not get support from the government, then we
July 29, 1982

go back to the departments about which we made recommendations. We follow up to see what has happened, to see whether the government has acted on the recommendations or whether the departments have acted on the recommendations of the committee.
As a consequence, we have specific recommendations now and I am pleased to say that 1 get a letter from the President of the Treasury Board after each report is tabled. He gives his initial views on how he sees this report of the committee. He also lets us know what might be happening to overcome some of the problems which the committee has seen.
I said earlier that I was sorry the President of the Treasury Board is not here because I am going to make some references to what he has said about some of our reports. I am sorry, too, because the first report of this committee in the Thirty-second Parliament covered material that was examined by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts during the Thirty-first Parliament when the present President of the Treasury Board was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
Before I go on to the recommendations in the report, I should say that the progress of the committee has come about through the efforts of a number of chairmen who were very active and responsible for many of the innovations to which 1 am referring today. As a matter of fact, I am the first chartered accountant that has ever been chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. My predecessor, the present President of the Treasury Board, is a lawyer, as is the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) who was chairman a little earlier. The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), a former chairman, is a business executive. We have had other business people as chairman. When I first came here a merchant, the former member for Wellington, was the chairman of the committee. The committee has come a long way.
The topic of the report for which we are asking concurrence today includes SPICE. I do not know if that means a spicy debate, allthough we hope so, but SPICE is one of the acronyms that has been developed recently. It stands for "Study of Procedures in Cost Effectiveness".
Anyone who hears about SPICE in the House of Commons might well ask what is SPICE and what does it do? Only a few months after his appointment in July, 1973 as Auditor General, James Macdonell announced the appointment of the independent review committee on the office of the Auditor General of Canada. That committee was comprised of two prominent chartered accountants and one prominent lawyer. It became known as the Wilson committee. It was named after the chairman, the late J. R. M. Wilson, a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
That committee reported in March, 1975. Among other things, referring to the Auditor General's report of 1978, the Wilson committee in 1975 said that government auditors should advise legislatures whether funds they grant to the administrative arms of government have been properly used. I think at that point we should say that value for money auditing was born. The Wilson committee also said that the Auditor
Public Accounts
General should take due account of economy and efficiency in conducting his examination of expenditures.
I think we can probably say that that was the beginning of economy, efficiency and effectiveness; the "three E's", as they are now known. The report also called for new legislation to provide specific authority for the Auditor General to report cases where, in his opinion, value for money has not been obtained through the government's expenditure of public funds. That is a very important forerunner to what we have today.
The Wilson committee also addressed the effectiveness of programs and said that Parliament's expectations in legislation are not always readily discernible, nor are the results achieved always measurable with reliable techniques. The audit office, the committee concluded, should take a great interest in the progress of effectiveness measurement. Those observations going back to 1975 became the foundation for what we know today as comprehensive auditing.
Two and a half years after the Wilson report was tabled we got from the Government of Canada a bill known as the Auditor General Act, 1976-77. This was proclaimed on August 1, 1977. The basis of that act was that it set out the legislative foundation of value for money auditing, and the Auditor General was required by this legislation to report to Parliament "anything that he considers to be of significance and of a nature that should be brought to the attention of the House of Commons, including any cases in which he has observed that money has been expended without due regard to economy or efficiency; or satisfactory procedures have not been established to measure and report the effectiveness of the program where such procedures could appropriately and reasonably be implemented".
At about that time the "three R's" became the "three E's"; that is economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In those three headings the word "economy" refers to the terms and conditions under which the government acquires human and material resources. An economical operation acquires these resources in appropriate quality and quantity at the lowest cost. Efficiency refers to the relationship between goods or services produced and resources used to produce them. An efficient operation produces the maximum output for any given set of resource inputs. Effectiveness concerns the extent to which a program achieves its goals or other intended effects.
I think there is many a slip between what the estimates committees of the House approve in the programs and what has been expended after the fact. Through these tools of comprehensive auditing, that is what we want to hear from the Auditor General of Canada.
While the Auditor General Act was simmering prior to its passage in August, 1977 the Auditor General in September, 1976 initiated a special project within his own office, and SPICE, the study of procedures in cost effectiveness, was born. Again I refer to the annual report of the Auditor General for 1978. The first objective of SPICE was to compile information on the state of the art of management and control systems in the public sector in terms of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The second objective was to assess and report on existing procedures for planning, measuring and controlling activities

July 29, 1982
Public Accounts
in the Public Service of Canada in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The third objective was to recommend to the office of the Auditor General how this new mandate should be exercised in the future.
The SPICE project was extremely thorough, extremely technical and extremely complex. By August, 1978 some 52 value for money audits had begun. One of the significant features of the SPICE methodological contribution was its emphasis upon value for money in the audit process. Part of SPICE was an examination of the planning process for capital acquisition projects.
At pages 42 and 43 of the same report, the audit conclusions read as follows:
Based on 13 SPICE audits completed to date, the capital acquisition process does not come up to a reasonable standard of "due regard for economy."
In his audit findings the Auditor General said:
Our examinations show that good practices that have emerged from many years of project management experience often were not followed in the planning and acquisition of capital assets.
There were many examples, and the committee studied a number of them. The most noticeable feature of the operation of capital acquisition projects was cost overruns on the very projects which were examined. On the ones that were examined, total costs had increased by 148 per cent over budget. Now, 148 per cent is a very significant increase because it is an increase of more than double. In other words, the original estimate of the costs of these projects which were examined was $281.6 million. By the time they were finished, it had escalated to $699.7 million, an increase of 148 per cent, or more than double the actual budgeted amounts.
Many projects take years to complete and cost overruns are commonplace, but they are not discovered until it is too late to do anything about them. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts has lamented this often. Hon. members on all sides know very well that by the time the committee examines some fault, particularly with cost overruns, the culprit, if we can call him that, has gone. I am referring to the responsible public official who helped or caused the overrun to occur. He is no longer in the job, perhaps he has been promoted to something grander, and it is impossible to find a culprit in many cases.
In 1979, during the Thirty-first Parliament, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts heard testimony on audits which were completed in 1977 and on projects which reached back into the early 1970s. Often capital acquisition projects carry on over a period of quite a few years. In fact, there is one here dealing with Fraser River flood protection which was originally approved in 1968, and when it was finally completed in 1978, ten years later, the costs had more than tripled from $18 million to $60 million.
Questions on what happened at the time of the failure of the system often went unanswered because the managers had moved on to different positions, other jobs, and the committee found that some decisions had been made without written record. When we are dealing with millions of taxpayers'
dollars, we must be particularly detailed in dealing with these expenditures, and authorizations must be meticulously obtained.
When the committee found that many decisions to expend money had been made without any written record, indeed it realized that it was a serious flaw. Major projects had been undertaken without complete information being available to those responsible for making decisions. Therefore, the committee made a number of recommendations in its first report, which was presented just over two years ago. I want to refer to those recommendations, particularly the ones which refer to the SPICE study, in the hope of improvement in government accountability to Parliament. Its first recommendation was that:
-a Special Committee of the House of Commons be established to review those ongoing projects which have projected cost overruns;-
I know the President of the Treasury Board is concerned about cost overruns. He keeps telling us that he is, but in the two years since this recommendation was made we have not seen the establishment of a special committee of the House of Commons to review ongoing projects with projected overruns. The projection of cost overruns comes at a time when, if the committee got hold of it, an estoppel could be made and the bleeding would be stopped.
The commitment to all capital projects underway at the time this recommendation was made was well in excess of $10 billion. Evidence and testimony before the committee indicated that current projects suffered from significant weaknesses in management control and might have been subjected to substantial cost overruns. Well, we are awaiting that.
The second recommendation was that:
-the Auditor General use more often his power to make special reports so that your Committee is able more often to examine current issues;-
I should like to mention the frustrations of hon. members of the House who are called upon to examine matters that are very old and untimely. For one thing, the Auditor General might take many months to do his work. When he reports to the House, usually around November, some of his work in the report is a year old by the time it is tabled because it was completed immediately after the report of the previous year. Usually the audit is examining something which happened a year or so before the actual audit work. This was a very important matter. All of us were successful in having a change in the Auditor General Act; the Auditor General was able to report special items of concern to him to the House. It was determined by the committee that it could serve its intended role more appropriately if the Auditor General were to use more often his power to make special reports.
That recommendation was not directed to the government or to the President of the Treasury Board. It was directed to the Auditor General. I must inform the House that the Auditor General has never seen fit to use his special power of reporting special items to the House. I was told by the former Auditor General of one instance wherein he came very close to making a special report to the House. But the present Auditor General
July 29, 1982

and his legal advisers are of the opinion that this power granted by the Auditor General Act is not sufficiently strong to allow the Auditor General to use that power in the manner recommended by the standing committee.
I am pleased to say that the President of the Treasury Board has agreed. I also understand that the government has agreed, and that as soon as it is convenient it will be agreed among all parties that the Auditor General Act be amended to give proper legal encouragement to the Auditor General to make more frequent reports to the House of Commons.
I might also say that the Auditor General sees some benefit in making three, four, five or six reports to the House of Commons in the period of a year because it would mean that the committees to which the reports would be referred would be looking at current material.
I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) across the floor. He should know that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is looking with a very interested eye at the recent report of the Auditor General on the Canadian Dairy Commission. As soon as the wheels can be put in motion, we will be taking a look at that. One benefit is that we do not have to wait for a reference because, as soon as the Auditor General tables a report in the House, it is automatically referred to committee.
Returning to the recommendations, the third one was that:
-all effectiveness evaluations, including methodology and findings, be tabled in the House of Commons within 60 days of their completion and that the Standing Orders of the House of Commons be amended to refer the evaluation reports automatically and permanently to the appropriate standing committees;-
We recognized, Mr. Speaker, that we were not the only committee that would be interested in expenditures and therefore we left it open in that recommendation to have other appropriate committees get references like that. I am not aware of any of these reports that have been tabled within 60 days of their completion or referred to any other committees, including our own.
The final recommendation in this section on SPICE was that:
-annual reports of departments contain non-technical summaries of effectiveness evaluations to highlight the impact of government programs.
The difficulty with a committee such as ours which is not necessarily familiar with certain technical areas is that we wanted to have a non-technical summary of effectiveness evaluations so that the committee could make a proper assessment.
Going on to the capital projects, the committee made a number of specific recommendations there, too.
The first was that before final approval is given to capital acquisition projects in excess of $10 million, deputy heads of departments and heads of agencies be required to certify in writing to the Treasury Board that all established procedures set out by the Treasury Board have been followed and, in particular, that the proposal is supported by accurate and complete documentation.
Public Accounts
I have already referred to some expenditures being approved without proper written documentation at all and it was often told to the committee that they could not do anything about that overexpenditure because the person who approved it in the first place had not followed the proper procedures. To eliminate that problem and practice, the committee thinks very seriously that these certifications should be achieved in writing. That is an internal document to the Treasury Board, and Treasury Board should want that kind of documentation before the government sets out to spend great chunks of money.
The second recommendation on capital projects was that greater effort be made to find and retain competent project managers and that the individual performance of project managers be recognized in their compensation and in their career progression.
The problem that came to light there was that some civil servants, some bureaucrats, were placed in positions of responsibility for which they were not competent, simply put. One of the reasons given for the lack of competence was that the positions did not carry an adequate level of compensation to attract competent people.
The third recommendation, again on the capital projects, is that the Auditor General have access to all relevant information other than political input furnished to a minister and to cabinet.
The Auditor General found when he was making his examinations that certain doors were closed to him as far as obtaining information that he should have in order to determine whether an expenditure met with the authorizations or with the regulations. The committee recognized that cabinet might have some special political input which they would not want members of the public or members of the opposition to have access to and, recognizing that, the committee allowed that all relevant information other than political input should be available to the Auditor General. That is especially important now when the Auditor General is required to comment on a comprehensive basis on economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
The next recommendation was that guidelines be established to ensure that decisions taken by departmental officials on the basis of political authority be supported by written instructions.
It is interesting that there may be some spoken political reason for doing a certain thing, such as putting a bridge somewhere or paving a certain road or spending money in a certain way, that evaporates unless it is put into writing. It evaporates at a time when the examination is to take place of that particular expenditure.
The next recommendation was that cost estimates for capital projects and analyses be expressed in constant and current dollars. The problem with our current rates of inflation, which have been going on for a decade or more now, and with relating dollars to capital projects which go on for a decade or so, or nearly a decade, is that the dollars that we end up with are not in the same measure as the dollars that were

July 29, 1982
Public Accounts
originally estimated to be expended. It was felt that only by expressing the estimates in constant and current dollars could any intelligent analysis be made of whether the project was being handled efficiently or not.
There was another section of this first report which dealt with program evaluation and there were three recommendations there. The first was that the government give high priority to evaluation work, that the positions currently authorized for planning and evaluation functions be devoted more to program evaluation, and that over a period of five years equal emphasis and effort be given to effectiveness evaluation and planning. That was expanded on a little bit in paragraph 23 of the report, as follows:
-in 1975, approximately 3,500 person-years were identified with the "Planning and Evaluation" function-
You would think that 3,500 people were enough to get proper planning and evaluation, but that number of 3,500 included 267 senior executive positions. Unfortunately, the testimony also revealed that, among 23 departments, only 131 person-years were devoted to program evaluation, and 62 of those person-years were in one department. Hence the recommendation, Mr. Speaker.
The second recommendation on program evaluation was that technical reports of effectiveness evaluation be available for critical review and comment, and in particular the committee encourages review in learned journals in order to focus the informed commentary of the academic community on the technology of evaluation research.
I do not feel as competent as some other members of the committee to comment on the critical review and the technical jargon in some of the evaluation reports, but I will allow that recommendation to stand on its own.
The third and last one in the program evaluation section was that recipients of program funds be required to execute an agreement stating that they will comply with reasonable requests for information for purposes of evaluation research.
That was to overcome problems of non-co-operation. The Auditor General and the government in fact found that many bodies that got grants were unwilling to co-operate to provide information that evaluation people needed when it came time to try to evaluate the programs and to see whether one should in fact be spending money in that way.
Probably the most important of the recommendations is the one contained in this paragraph, and that is that the committee requests that the government respond to the recommendations in this report by March 31, 1981, in order that Parliament be informed of developments in the accountability process of the government to Parliament. If we cannot get responsibility and accountability back into the House of Commons, there is no way that the members who are elected to look after business affairs for the taxpayers are going to be able to do their job properly.
This report was tabled in July of 1980 and a response in something like eight and one-half months was requested. We did have a response, to be fair, but we have not had the action
that we need, in spite of statements by the President of the Treasury Board on behalf of the government that action was taking place, and in spite of letters to me. I want to read a couple of paragraphs of what the minister said. First of all, in 1980, referring to this very report of the standing committee tabled in the House on July 18, 1980, the minister said this:
I have discussed its contents with my officials both in the Treasury Board and in the Office of the Comptroller General, and I am pleased to say that we consider the committee's recommendations positive and helpful. Moreover, as President of the Treasury Board, I find it gratifying to see the committee's explicit recognition of our collective concern for improved management processes.
Perhaps the minister has been in his portfolio for too long, because it is nearly two years since he wrote that. At the time he wrote it he was very intimately familiar with the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and what it had recommended or was going to recommend, as well as with what the committee had heard during his tenure as chairman. In that same letter he went on to say:
It has always been my view, and it still is, that consideration of cost over-runs falls properly within the jurisdiction of the Public Accounts Committee.
It is nice to hear that from the minister. In that same paragraph he continues:
I have been concerned, however, and I still am, that by virtue of its linkage to the Auditor General's report, much of the committee's information deals mainly with the past.
I have already dealt with that complaint. He goes on:
I do, therefore, support efforts to provide more current information to parliamentarians on the matter of project management, with a view to strengthening existing methods of parliamentary scrutiny and control.
In this letter the minister stated in black and white nearly two years ago that he agrees with all the recommendations. But something has happened. The minister may have lost his power, interest or influence-we do not know-but we are not getting the results. That is why it is so important that the House consider this report today.
Lest members opposite think that I am overstating the case of the interest of the minister, I would read two sentences from another letter that the minister wrote to me as chairman on February 6, 1981. That was four months after the first letter 1 referred to. We had filed our second report to the House by then. In this letter he said:
-I want to assure you of Treasury Board's continuing interest in the efforts of your committee by initiating an approach to regularize our response to PAC reports.
In other words, he is going to write me to thank me and say what a nice job the committee has done every time we file a report. He goes on to say this, which I think is a telling sentence:
Although I cannot view the second report of the PAC as a positive and helpful contribution as I did the first report, I want to assure you of Treasury Board's continuing interest in the recommendations which your committee makes to Parliament.
In other words, the minister is paying lip service to the recommendations in the second report, although he indicates
July 29, 1982

Public Accounts {Division No. 234)
that he does not like it as much as the first report. He reiterates his support in the first letter by the words "as 1 did the first report" in the second letter. He had not changed his mind too much in those four months.
What the House deserves to know now-I hope we will get some answers from the government-is what will the government do about these recommendations, so many of which are still outstanding. During our further examinations in the Public Accounts Committee, we will be re-examining some of our recommendations. We have a very good follow-up procedure and we will be asking for some of these answers in committee. I think it is fair, however, that the House, having heard these strong words from the minister, should now concur in this motion and in what the minister has said. The government knows from the Treasury Board that the President of the Treasury Board is losing his battle. As I say, 1 do not know if he is losing it in the Privy Council Office or in cabinet, but it is obvious that the President of the Treasury Board needs the help of the House. I appeal very strongly to members in the House from all sides to give the House the strength of its concurrence in the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious and regrettable that the official opposition is using the same stalling tactic today that it used yesterday to prevent the House from dealing with Bill C-85, the Canagrex bill, which is a badly needed piece of legislation. To allow the House to deal with this legislation rather than drone on about a two-year-old report, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson), pursuant to Standing Order 24:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion (Mr. Smith) agreed to.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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)- Penitentiaries-Showing of pornographic films and staging of topless dancing, (b) Coroner's statement on cyanide deaths; the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight)-Canadian Wheat Board-Query respecting application of 6 per cent rule to two-price system, (b) Announcement in Senate; the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)-Energy-Funding for oil exploration in Senegal, (b) Machinery auction sale.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
[ English |

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 regulations of the Canada Post Corporation pertaining to the receipt of mail by persons living in towns who are not entitled to postal delivery at their residences.
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should allay the fears of any nervous members of the official opposition by saying that there will not be an attempt this afternoon to pass any measure in five minutes. In fact, if I may refer to that particular instance, I can only say to those who are interested that the measure at which criticism has been levelled concerning the length of time that it was actually in the House was debated on the floor of the House on many occasions over a period of many years. It was actually in the committee for committee study on at least two occasions and, in fact, was even in third reading on the floor of the House. I relay that information to those who referred to the passage of a measure in five minutes. In fact, it was ten years and many hours of debate before that particular measure eventually found its way into the Senate. As I understand it, that particular measure, Bill C-201, is already in its fourth day of debate in the Senate.
I will now turn to the subject at hand, which is the Canada Post Corporation. I brought this subject up as a result of a rather unusual incident. I want to go back to a question I put
on the Order Paper some eight years ago, in 1974, to which the answer I got was:
The Canada Post Office is currently reviewing its lock box policy. All relevant factors concerning lock box service are being examined. It is important to note, however, that current Post Office policy provides for General Delivery service at no charge for persons living in areas where there is no delivery of mail.
I raised the point because I live in an area where there is no delivery of mail. I am one of the many individuals in this country who has to go to the post office in order to obtain his mail.
A letter signed by the president of Canada Post, Mr. Michael Warren, in March, 1982, states:
-my senior officials in retail marketing are currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the Corporation's post office box program.
That is interesting. In 1974, I read the same answer. It was still being studied in 1982. What brought the subject to my attention again this year? I will read a letter which I wrote to Mr. Michael Warren, president of Canada Post, on January 27 of this year. I said:
For years I have complained that I have to pay for a post office box which saves the Post Office money. In Hudson, we do not have postal delivery, and the boxes serve as a very convenient means for sorting the mail.
If everyone in Hudson were to abandon their box and request their mail at the counter, it would be necessary to hire at least two additional employees.
Because you save the salaries of both postmen for delivery and office personnel, I see no reason why you should charge me for a box which is for your convenience.
What precipitated that letter was a little bill I received from the post office requesting me to pay the sum of $12. That is not too much, Mr. Speaker, but nevertheless it was $12. So I wrote to the local postmaster and said:
Your card has been received advising me that I must pay you $12 for my post office box. Please note that henceforth mail will be picked up at the counter.
Then a very interesting thing happened. I have lived in the same house for some 35 years, with the same address, the same street number and so on. The post office then asked my wife to sign a document which it called a "Change of Address Card" and to pay $1.50 to the post office. My wife, in disbelief, paid over the sum of $1.50. So I wrote to the president of Canada Post again and this time I said:
It is my opinion that the Post Office owes me $1.50 extracted from my wife for an unnecessary change of address card, because I have not changed my address in the last 35 years.


Harold Thomas Herbert: No, so far no luck. In February I then put a motion to the House under Standing Order 43 and suggested that the post office cease and desist these "usurious charges" for change of address cards and so on.
Just to be sure of myself, I also put a question on the Order Paper, No. 4,030, asking under what conditions the post office can refuse to surrender mail to a properly identified person


Stan Darling: Did you get your money back?
July 29, 1982

when the mail bears the full residential address of the individual requesting the mail. The response was "I am informed by the Canada Post Corporation as follows, under the following conditions', prohibitory order, postage due unpaid, letters in customs, and non-mailable matter under the prohibited mail regulations." Obviously, it did not include any mail directly addressed to me. I am supposed to get it free of charge.
Two local residents of Hudson, Mrs. Margaret Clarke and Mrs. Bette Thomas, also wrote to the president of the post office at that time and asked him a couple of questions. They asked, "Who is suddenly responsible for imposing these changes in a system which has been working satisfactorily without them? Have you thought of the consequences if everyone opts for general delivery at the post office?" The cost to deliver mail to individual residents in 1979-again the answer to a question on the Order Paper-was $73 per annum. Obviously, in 1982 we are talking about a figure of approximately $100. Thus, anyone who is not entitled to receive his mail at his residence, like we who live in Hudson, is saving the post office $100 per annum.
Now, there is no charge for mail delivered to an apartment box, for example. The post office decided to get back at us in a rather ingenious fashion. Listen while I read a letter which I wrote to the president of the Canada Post Corporation on July 14, 1982. 1 said:
Last week, my wife advised me that she had been asked to sign a document at the Post Office and then pay $1.50 a month in order to receive our mail.
This was at the counter, mind you. I went on to say:
I told her NOT to sign, and NOT to pay.
Today, a blind resident of Hudson who collects his mail at the counter has reported a similar extortion attempt at the Hudson Post Office.
1 used the word "extortion". Imagine, a blind resident who cannot use the post office box and who has been obliged, for all the years I have been in the House, to pick up his mail at the counter, is now asked to pay $1.50 a month for that privilege!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Harold Thomas Herbert: The response from the president was that there were some overzealous employees and that there is now no problem.


Mr. Guilbault:: Six and five would cure that.


Harold Thomas Herbert: If one decides to pick up one's mail at the counter, there are several factors involved, of course. First of all, if one picks up one's mail at the counter, then the employees must have some distribution system on site in order to sort the mail. The post office boxes themselves are a very effective means of sorting. The employees can sort all day every day. There is no pressure on them. If the counter service is heavy, they can leave sorting for a while and I find this, of course, to be a great convenience for the post office. If people decide to pick up their mail at the counter, then it is obvious that some sorting mechanism will have to be provided within the post office.
Canada Post Corporation
However, there is another little fly in the ointment here. That is what made me mad. I was waiting for my own householder to be delivered, and I send out about 40,000 every three months. I use the one that I receive at my own address as a check on the distribution, but it did not arrive. I inquired and 1 was told, "Oh, that is because you get your mail at the counter; that is general delivery". I asked, "What difference does that make? Am I not entitled to get one of my own mailers and is everyone else who picks up at the counter not entitled to get one of my mailers?" I was told, "What we do with the ones that are left over is to leave them in a stack at the side and if we think about it, we pass one across the counter; but, of course, we do not want to give anyone more than one." I understood that. I was told, "So in your case we thought that maybe you had already received one and that is why we did not include one in your mail." The point is that these are not distributed on a regular basis. The post office does not automatically distribute them. I know it is not first class mail. But my mailer, and this applies to all the rest of the mail which is put in the post office for distribution to all householders, is not distributed on a formal basis. It is very haphazard. We may or may not receive it, depending upon the day or the time we pick up our mail.
I should point out, also in answer to a question on the Order Paper, that there are some two million Canadians who do not receive either door-to-door or rural roadside mail delivery service. That amounts to something under 10 per cent of our population. Post offices boxes in use in this country number something just over 1.5 million. Persons receiving their mail by general delivery amount to something under half a million. However, of the post office boxes, one must make another subdivision because in the figures in answer to a question it was shown that 834,000 of these boxes are for individuals who are not entitled to residential delivery service. In other words, approximately half of these people are not entitled to residential delivery and half choose to have a box as a convenience.
I understand the deficit at the post office this year will exceed $400 million. By the time the figures are in, the chances are we will be talking about half a billion dollars. There are some 60,000 employees of the post office, and it is interesting that of the total post office cost 72 per cent is for personnel costs and benefits, including all labour and wage-related items. Therefore, theoretically the post office should be very interested in means by which it can cut down its staff. But it certainly will not cut its staff; it will increase its staff if there is an increasing number of persons like me who get fed up with what we consider unnecessary increases in charges for post office boxes and decide to pick up their mail at the counter.
It is also interesting-and, I think, relevant-to look at the breakdown of the use of the post office. Eighty per cent of mail is business mail and, of the remaining 20 per cent, 8 per cent of total mail is mail from individuals to individuals and 12 per

July 29, 1982
Canada Post Corporation
cent is from individuals to business. In other words, even the 12 per cent of mail from individuals to business is business-related. I suppose in the main it is people paying their bills. However, only 8 per cent of all mail is from individuals to individuals, and when people complain about mail, the complaints are mostly about that aspect of the service. I suggest we recognize that 80 per cent-or 92 per cent, if we include all business-related mail-is in effect a subsidy to business and should be looked on as such.
There is one other small item I think should be put on the record because I find it somewhat amusing. It might be of interest to hon. members that it costs the post office 55 cents to sell one dollar's worth of postage stamps. I find that figure to be quite extraordinary; nevertheless, that is the answer to question No. 271. If a machine is used, the cost is reduced to 30 cents on every dollar's worth of postage stamps sold. I suppose we could use more machines, but I sincerely question the 55 cents on the dollar cost to sell postage stamps.
What is all this about? I suggest there should be a little more thought on the part of post office personnel. They should realize that the more than 800,000 people in this country who are not entitled to mail delivery to our residences have for years gone to our local post offices to pick up our mail without question. We have saved the post office a very considerable sum of money which otherwise would have been spent on postal delivery. I have suggested that we should pay purely a nominal sum for the post office boxes we use in post offices. A study has been going on-and it continues-since 1974. I will not at this moment suggest the extreme. I have suggested before in this House that perhaps we should abolish residential delivery entirely. That probably will bring some squawks! However, there are many of us who use local post office boxes. We have been saving the post office money and should no longer be penalized by what I consider to be picayune attempts to pick up a dollar here and a dollar there. I sincerely request that the study to which I have referred concludes, in 1982, that we be left in peace, as we were before, to pay our $6 a year for the privilege of using a box and that it be left at that. I ask that the post office leave us alone to lead our lives in a normal, peaceful fashion.


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed a very graphic demonstration of the impotence of members of the government party in persuading both the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation and that monster we unleashed as recently as a few short months ago upon the unsuspecting public. We have heard some tales of woe from the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), who has indicated that he had to pay $1.50 for a change of address card and that he was obliged to pay $12 for the rental of a post box. Having regard to the wording of his motion, the hon. member might have drawn some very significant matters to the attention of the House, but he did not do that.
In the riding of York North there is an impending battle dealing with the pending regulations under the Canada Post Corporation Act between the Markham Hydro Commission and the corporation. It seems that the Markham Hydro Commission, in its wisdom and desire to save users money, has
decided to incorporate the process of both reading a meter and at the same time rendering an account with respect to that meter to the householder. Canada Post Corporation believes that will deprive the corporation of substantial sums of money, and that is absolutely true. In the event the process adopted by the Markham Hydro Commission is effective, one can expect that every hydro commission in the country will adopt the process. The Markham Hydro Commission has an ingenious device which permits the meter reader to tabulate the exact cost of energy consumed and leave a copy of that calculation with the householder while doing his job. Technically, the post office says, that constitutes the delivery of a letter, over which it has a monopoly. There can be no letter delivered, except in the event that three times the normal postage rate is paid and except through the services-loosely referred to-of the Canada Post Corporation.
This raises some rather interesting prospects. As I was thinking about the process employed by this ingenious utility corporation, I thought about a neighbour going to visit a friend across the way, finding his friend away from his house, taking out a pen and paper and leaving a note on the door saying: "I called for you, but you weren't home. Please call me." Conceivably that is a letter, as Canada Post Corporation would like it defined, and the perpetrator of that horrible offence, having delivered a letter without using the services of the Canada Post Corporation, is subject to a fine. To think that this House permitted that kind of loose interpretation to slip into a piece of legislation passed by this House is an abomination. Every time I had an opportunity when dealing with that issue-and recognizing the problem that bill created-I drew it to the attention of the House.
Originally the minister now responsible for the Canada Post Corporation, who at that time was the postmaster general, made two statements in the House. I do not have them in front of me, but Hansard will confirm them. On one occasion he said it was perfectly all right if utilities wished to use the services of someone who might deliver bills because he fully recognized that it was less expensive to do it in that fashion. Later he changed his mind and said it was illegal for utilities to use that service. It was apparent from the wording of the statute that it would be illegal.
The process employed initially by the Markham Hydro Commission, however, is a deviation from that illegality, 1 submit, because what it is is a situation in which no one is being sent out for the purpose of delivering something prepared in another place. The person who actually performs the reading of the meter, which is a service completely unrelated to a letter in any form or fashion, at the same time makes a note, and that note is to be used for two purposes. The first is the purpose of indicating to his headquarters or office the amount of energy consumed. He knows the rate to be charged and, on his calculator, he determines what that is. As a convenience to the householder he tells the householder-as though the householder had come out and said to the meter reader, "Tell me what you have found"-"I have found that
July 29, 1982

you have used this much energy, but you yourself may confirm it if you read the meter yourself, having regard to bills you have received in the past, and I will tell you what that energy consumption multiplied by the energy rate is going to cost you". He gives them those figures and as a matter of convenience gives them on the spot, in such a way that they can be used as a form of reference.
These are important issues which should be dealt with in this House, not the issue of whether $1.50 or $12 is being charged for the rental of a post box. To deal with the issue of post boxes, I submit you must first deal with the matter of access to those boxes, which is far and beyond the considerations raised in this motion.
The post boxes are kept under lock and key. Thousands of people in my riding would like to use them, but unfortunately there is a limited number of boxes. The riding of York North falls in the category where home mail delivery is not available throughout the entire region, so the issue is when can people gain access to the boxes? The answer is, so long as the post office is open. This creates a problem that in the past has given rise to complaints from constituents who were not able to get boxes because they were not available and constituents who had to stand in line for half an hour at a time, at inconvenient times, because the wickets are not fully manned. This inconvenience to the public has been overlooked. These are the issues to which we should direct our attention, Mr. Speaker.
The concerns that must be dealt with as they relate to the economy in the conduct of business by utility companies, must be paramount in the minds of Members of Parliament asked by the government to restrain demands. The restraint in demands by the utility companies is illustrated by the desire to seek out economical ways to service customers. Because of the functioning of the Canada Post Corporation, that is done through a system such as I have just described.
I raise these issues because the regulations will be approved or rejected by the government. They are in the process of being drafted, and I feel that they are being drafted in a fashion that will preclude the functioning of utility companies as I have described it. That kind of draftsmanship does more disservice to a principal of objectives in this House, which is to cut costs to consumers for services rendered, not only by this government and provincial governments but by municipal corporations and their agencies.
Unfortunately there are no ministers in the House at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but I urge the members of the government who are present to urge the ministers to look seriously at this problem, particularly in light of the alleged government program to keep costs, in addition to salaries, at a level which will not exceed a growth of 6 per cent for the following year.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this motion presented by the hon. member on the other side I should like to refer to a number of items, complaints and oddities that occur in some of the rural areas that result from the post office service and regulations. It might be helpful to read parts of some letters I have received which will
Canada Post Corporation
outline the problems more clearly. The first letter, addressed to the Postmaster General, comes from Slocan, British Columbia and reads in part as follows:
Sir: Recently there has been a drastic increase in postal rates. Now I have been informed of another harsh increase, namely for rental of my postal box.
I strongly protest these outrageous increases without a vast improvement in service. Both increases are unjust and the latter appears to be discriminatory.
I, as well as many other residents in this particular rural area along Hwy. 6, must travel several miles, at extra expense, to collect my mail at the post office in Slocan. We are outside the village limits but do not have rural delivery.
I am told that petitions for such delivery have been submitted in the past, with no results.
In this age of statistics and inspectors why should a time-consuming petition be necessary? Your policies should be examined and revised.
Should there be a charge for box rental in the first place? Urban dwellers receive door-to-door delivery by letter carriers. Is the cost proportionate? We have a right to equal service for equal cost. The cost of a set of keys for a box should be adequate. We already pay that additional cost.
Are we being penalized for our preference of environment?
Another grievance is the antiquated policy of the Post Office in refusing payment by cheque for box rentals. Since we have no choice, this causes another expensive inconvenience, especially during winter months. In this area the banking establishments are a considerable distance away. 1 see no reason why the local grocery store should be expected to provide this service. If I am required to make such payment, I demand that I be allowed to submit a cheque.
I might add that the hours of access to the postal boxes have been curtailed to little more than the Post Office business hours. Access to the wickets is always denied during sorting of the mail-another inconvenience.
An additional insult is the fact that I am required to purchase a 30-cent stamp in order to inform you of these injustices.
I trust you will give these predicaments your immediate attention. I await your early reply.
That is just one example, but it deals directly with some of the problems in a rural area which were discussed by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). There are other complaints dealing with post boxes and group boxes. The request being made is totally understandable and gives us an opportunity to raise some of the grievances in ways other than we do normally, either by dealing with the appropriate minister or now, of course, directly with the Canada Post Corporation, wherever possible.
In the past few months I think that most members will have found the administration of the Canada Post Corporation to be very receptive and to be working as effectively as is possible in a new regime. All of us are going to have to be on our toes when it comes to redrafting the regulations and definitions in an attempt to ensure that some of the current peculiarities are straightened out.
The hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) pointed out to me that, in an area that encompasses part of his constituency and part of mine in the lower Kootenay Lake area, group boxes were being installed by the local post office but that there were some problems with them. People who have subscriptions to magazines and newspapers found that group boxes do not provide any cover so some of the newspapers and magazines were received wet and in an unreadable condition. A constituent who was not satisfied with the group box went to the local post office and asked for his

July 29, 1982
Canada Post Corporation
former box back in the central post office because he had never requested the change to a group box. He was then told he would either take what he was given or his rates would be doubled. That is adding insult to injury. Again, his is not an isolated case. He has paid his money and then is told he has to take his chances when he thought he knew what he was getting in the first place. That is totally unjust, and surely the cost factor to the post office is not such that people should be treated in quite that way.
A member-I think it was the previous speaker from the Conservative Party-mentioned a number of issues relating to the ability of the post office to finance, especially during its current transitory phase, some of the improvements which many of us demand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am well aware, first, that we are coming to the end of the session; second, that it is the middle of the summer; and third, that it is private members' hour. Still and all, I do not think we ought to put aside completely the rule of relevance. Perhaps it is wise that on some occasions members should be reminded of it.
I want to assure the hon. member that, given the circumstances 1 just mentioned, I am not going to apply the rule very stringently. However, I do suggest that if he examines the motion he will see the words:
-the receipt of mail by persons living in towns who are not entitled to postal delivery at their residences.
1 would also want to indicate to the hon. member that because 1 was rather busy with other matters I did not pay careful attention to the preceding speaker, the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble), but I will pay careful attention to the next hon. member to follow. For the sake of the rule of relevance I would ask the hon. member if he could try to address himself to the motion.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that I talked about anything other than the problems of people in rural areas who receive their mail either through group boxes or post office boxes, and I have not dwelled at all on those who receive their mail by way of home delivery, which is quite different in some respects from what both the previous speakers spoke about. Perhaps I have been wandering in some areas, but I do not see a distinction at all between what I have been saying and the rule of relevance. However, I will bear it in mind so that I do not stray too much in the future.
In many of the responses which I have received from the post office corporation, and I am sure other members have as well, one of the major points raised regarding prospective improvements is that "we will continue to respond to changing community needs with mail delivery best suited to local conditions as the resources of the corporation permit". Because of the importance of having the corporation spend its money as wisely as possible, I think a number of us have been more than a little taken aback at recent plans, for instance, by the post office to spend some $200,000 in advertising. We are talking of approximately a $400 million deficit, which others have said
may grow to $500 million, but nevertheless what is this $200,000 to advertise? I think most people, at least in the area I represent, are quite aware of the limitations on service and they realize that it is going to take some time to improve. They do not need to be told that things are improving; if there is an improvement in service they will see it very quickly and I am sure some of them will even inform us. Some of them have already because they have been heartened by the little progress they have seen in the improvement of delivery which has taken place over the last few months.
There is another matter which touches upon the ability of the post office to finance some of the requested improvements, and it has relevance to a bill currently before the House. Last Friday I asked in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates a question of a gentleman appearing before that committee in another capacity but who is a director of the Canada Post Corporation. It had to do with the implications of Bill C-124 and its effect on the post office corporation. Because it does affect the financial ability, as he saw it, of that corporation to provide some of the increased services people are demanding, including the hon. member who sponsored the motion before us, I do indeed think it is relevant to the matter at hand. The answer of Mr. Lang was as follows:
I think Bill Findlay from the letter carriers can probably supplement anything I am about to say. I have been working closely with all the unions in the Crown corporation and the Post Office before it became a Crown corporation, and since it became a Crown corporation I have been one of the labour directors on the Canada Post Corporation. So I do have some familiarity with the Post Office.
Let me say that throughout the transition to Crown corporation status, and since it has become a Crown corporation, all the unions have been working closely under the umbrella of the congress in meeting with the president of that Crown corporation and in looking at all areas of that Crown corporation's activities. I would even go so far as to having real input and making amendments to the long-range corporate strategy on service, financial self-sufficiency, and labour relations. The unions are having a real impact on that corporation in trying to turn it around.
Let me be quite frank with you. Since this bill has come down, it has not only thrown into question all the objectives of Canada Post Corporation, because the five-year plan which had been drawn up and the financial targets which are to be met are now all thrown into jeopardy, both on the receipt side and on the expenditure side-it is very, very doubtful whether the Crown corporation, if the government pursues its Bill C-124, particularly on the price increase side but also on the labour relations side, is going to be able to meet its financial commitments or the financial stringencies this government has placed on it. In other words, if it cannot meet them, what it is going to mean, in my opinion, as a director, is that the Crown corporation is going to have a larger deficit, and that is going to have to come out of general revenue.
I think that points out another danger in areas that we will be dealing with in the days immediately to come, which will put further roadblocks in the way of all those members who have been attempting for months, many for years, to get better service not only in the rural areas but also in urban areas, particularly in western Canada, who have been waiting for ungodly lengths of time for an extension of home delivery. Certainly they have some benefits of urban residents, but they do not have the benefit of a modernized postal service. We certainly hope that whatever is done in the future, if we are successful in assisting those who are trying to modernize the post office, we can bring about some of the improvements to
July 29, 1982

service which I and many others have been asking for. For example, in Kamloops, areas such as Aberdeen Heights and Dufferin are totally urban in design and density, yet they have been unable to receive door-to-door delivery for many years. The entire district of Salmon Arm, which is a highly urban area with a population in excess of 15,000, has again been waiting for years for door-to-door delivery. It seems to be unfair. In Calgary, Alberta, some areas have finally got home delivery. But we still have many urban areas that are still unable to get that kind of service.
I have one final problem that I want to bring to the attention of the House. It concerns communities which have postal box delivery. Often addressed mail does not have the box number included and the mail is not delivered, but returned. In smaller communities this problem is even more evident. There seems to be no reason why post office officials who know the people in the community very well refuse to deliver mail to the boxes simply because the mail does not have the box number on it. We know that regulations require that all details are to be listed on mail. But in the absence of a list or directory of persons and their box numbers, it seems silly that the only time post office officials are allowed by the regulations to forward mail to boxes without an indication of the box number on the item is when it emanates from outside of Canada.
The excuse used by the post office, although it is not in the regulations, is that it cannot publish such a directory of names and box numbers because it would be contrary to the privacy section of the Human Rights Act. But if someone wants to have an unlisted box number, why can that not be allowed? A person can have an unlisted telephone number. If someone wants to have an unlisted box number, why can a person not make that request to the post office in the same way a person does for a telephone? You simply stipulate to the telephone company that you do not want your name and number listed. Why can that not be done for a post office box number? Why that is permissible under the Human Rights Act for a telephone and not for a post office box is beyond me, and it is beyond the comprehension of many of the people I serve and, I am sure, of many people across Canada. There are many anomalies and oddities in the regulations for which no one seems to be able to find a sensible basis. I do hope that in the very near future many of these things can be straightened out and we can get on with our jobs.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to express a few points of view today with respect to the Canada Post Corporation. You will recall that making Canada Post Corporation a Crown corporation was supposed to solve many administrative ills. The government engaged a high-powered guy-


Stan Darling: A high-priced one.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: -to take it over, to straighten out problems dealing with such things as mail delivery in towns. However, I have not seen much
Canada Post Corporation
improvement. I support the motion made by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). I even find myself in agreement with the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) who spoke this afternoon. I never thought I would live to see the day I would agree with him, but I do today. I agree that Canada Post Corporation should be limited not only to the 6 per cent and 5 per cent increases in rates but I say Canada Post should not get a penny more from the public until it has shown that it has its house in order and it is not squandering public funds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It is time there was some order in the post office. As a matter of fact, I have come to the conclusion that the administration of Canada Post Corporation is perhaps the most arrogant group that one could find anywhere in the world. There is a problem in my own home community. For three weeks, since the postmistress resigned, I have been trying to find out what is going on. I might just as well be talking to the man in the moon because my telephone calls are never returned. When I telephone to make an inquiry I am always told that everybody is at a meeting, or they are out or up or down, but never there. One wonders how is one supposed to get answers when no one is ever there. It seems to me that when somebody who represents a constituency in this country calls a Crown corporation, one should have the right to expect a reply and not be completely ignored. I know that Canada Post does not have much time for Members of Parliament. After all, we are a pretty lowly species. I suppose people in Canada Post read the press and find out just how lowly we are and unworthy of discussion. But in any event, when I call Canada Post, I expect to get replies.
There is one thing of which I want to assure the public and members of the House who are having problems with Canada Post, and that is that Section 33(2) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, formerly known as Bill C-42, states that every annual report made before Parliament pursuant to subsection (1) stands permanently referred to such standing committee of Parliament as is established for the purpose of reviewing matters relating to transportation.
It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that, by the grace of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Transport I am the chairman of that committee. One day Canada Post will at least have to conform with the law and its report will come before the Standing Committee on Transport. For once Canada Post officials will have to answer questions put to it. If I am still chairman of that committee, I am quite prepared to state here and now that the hon. member for Vaudreuil will be able to obtain answers to his questions. I will ensure as well that other members of the House who have been unable to get responses from Canada Post will also get their questions answered. That is the reason the act states that representatives of Canada Post must come before a committee of Parliament to justify the annual report of Canada Post Corporation. That is a wide reference. At that time we can find out about persons living in

July 29, 1982
Canada Post Corporation
towns who are not entitled to delivery at their residence and why certain district directors in this country-who more properly should be called district disrupters-have the authority in their minds to determine that rural areas, entitled to rural delivery within one-quarter mile of the Post Office, can be declared by their whims and wishes to be incorporated villages. The justification a district director gave to the press was that everyone knows the village is a village because there are road signs saying "This is Millerton". It happens to be my home community so I know that it is not an incorporated village, but that does not seem to make any difference. The district director decides. What he decides, because he gets his mandate from God, obviously, has to be right.
If these people decide to move the post office in the middle of the night, that is fine, too. Canada Post officials do not have to notify the people. They can write notices to every person on a particular delivery route telling them that as of such and such a date the address will be changed. There will be a new postal code and the whole bit. When that is challenged and an explanation is demanded, the answer given is, "We have no idea how that letter got written." Despite the fact the letter was signed, that is the answer we get. You are told, "It was all a mistake, it should never have been written." Maybe the postal corporation should pull in some of their people and give them a course in honesty and truthfulness. Maybe the president of the corporation should spend a little less time in meetings and a little more time talking to people. Maybe he should have his people answering phone calls. Maybe he should see that they are in once in a while. If some of these things were done, maybe we would have some service. But until we get that service, the post office should not go to the people of Canada looking for any more funds.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the motion which is before the House this afternoon presented by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). I have had a great interest in the post office for some years as a member of our own party's committee on that subject. I can appreciate the hon. member's concern with respect to the charge made for postal boxes. In my area of Parry Sound-Muskoka there are a great many municipalities, yet only one town in the whole riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, the town of Parry Sound, has mail delivery. All the rest have post offices, both small and large. I have had a great many complaints in recent years concerning increases of 100 per cent on all boxes. A great many people-and of course many of them are not in good financial positions-are very unhappy about it. There has also been a good many complaints from people who live in rural areas where there is mail delivery, but for some reason or other-and this is a small percentage of the population-they would prefer to have their mail delivered to post boxes and to purchase post boxes. Of course they are assessed a 100 per cent surcharge over the regular rate because rural mail is available to them. I feel that this is an injustice.
May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the hon. member for recognizing the time. Before calling it six o'clock, it has been brought to my attention that last Friday I indicated to hon. members I would attempt to produce a solution to the question concerning the mysterious disappearance from the Falkland Islands. That solution has been found, it is called, "war brides".
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-85 to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: As hon. members are aware, there are 14 motions standing on the notice paper at the report stage of 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.
Motions Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 should be debated together with a vote on motion No. 6, disposing of Motions Nos. 1 and 8; and a vote on motion No. 7, disposing of Motions Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12.
Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) gives the Chair some misgiving concerning its procedural acceptability in that it is attempting to introduce a new definition in Clause 2 by way of an amendment of a substantive nature. Therefore, I refer the hon. member to Beauchesne's Citation 773(10) and to Mr. Speaker Lamoureux's ruling on May 21, 1970, when he said:
... amendments of a substantive or declaratory nature should not be proposed to an interpretation clause. If such amendments were accepted, the clause would not then be an interpretation clause. I am sure hon. members realize the difficulty of accepting substantive amendments or proposals under the general classification of interpretation. I suggest to hon. members with respect that that is not the place to make proposed amendments or motions which are of a substantive nature.

July 29, 1982

Therefore, I must rule that Motion No. 2 is not acceptable. However, the hon. member, if he so wishes, may present his arguments in favour of the motion at the appropriate time.
Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 should be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 13 and 14 should be debated and voted on separately.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-85, an act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be amended by striking out the long title at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"An act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote and facilitate the export of agricultural and food products from Canada".


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (for Mr. Schellenberger) moved:: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-85, an act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 13 and 14 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"purposes of promoting and facilitating the export".
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-85, an act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 20 to 23 at page 9, lines 3 to 8 and lines 14 to 22 at page 10.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-85, an act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out line 28 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) promote or facilitate trade in"
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-85, an act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 9 to 37 at page 12.


Mr. Bill McKnight moved:: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-85, an act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be amended in Clause 16 by striking out line 3 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"grex intends to use for its".
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-85, an act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be amended in Clause 16 by striking out lines 6 and 7 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"grex with respect to any loan or".
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-85, an act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be amended in Clause 16 by striking out lines 11 and 12 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"purpose of any loan or guarantee entered".


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I make an inquiry with respect to your ruling that my Motion
Canagrex
No. 2 has been declared unsatisfactory or not acceptable? Am I to understand that Mr. Speaker has ruled that at an appropriate time-I think that was the expression Mr. Speaker used-I may be able to present certain arguments in support of the acceptability of my motion? Am 1 to understand that 1 can do this at some later date?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The hon. member has understood correctly. I might repeat that what I said was that Motion No. 2, because of the precedent quoted, is not acceptable in the opinion of the Chair. However, the hon. member, if he so wishes, may present his arguments in favour of the motion at the appropriate time. I would take "appropriate" to mean once we have disposed of the grouping of Clauses Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the bill which is before us tonight deals exclusively with agriculture. During the time 1 have been in the House it is one of the rare times that we have had an opportunity to discuss agriculture.
Many people may wonder why agriculture is important since many of the available figures which are widely used indicate that there is something less than 5 per cent of the population which is engaged in farming. Therefore, some may wonder why a bill which concerns agriculture may be important. 1 see here the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and a fair number of government members. Their presence here I think is important because it demonstrates that they also believe that agriculture is important.
The reason why agriculture is so important in Canada is precisely that less than 5 per cent of the population is engaged in that industry. If there were up to 20 per cent, or as many as 50 per cent of the population engaged in farming, such as in India, we would not have the time to enjoy all the amenities which we take for granted in this country. We would not be able to have a 40-hour work week or paid vacations or enjoy a standard of living which we have come to expect and take for granted.
I am also pleased that the Canagrex bill has attracted the attention of the media because this bill is worthy of some media attention, a fact which in turn may attract the attention of the rest of the country.
Too frequently we take the efficiency of our agricultural industry in this country for granted. We take it for granted that we can depend on the agricultural industry. For example, I do not think any of us have been to a store where we could not purchase a loaf of bread, milk or vegetables and fruits which are out of season. Very often farmers or businessmen go to shops to order supplies only to find that they are on backorder or have to be manufactured and shipped to the shop. This just does not happen with respect to our agricultural commodities which we call staples and what we see as necessities in our country. Therefore, I suggest that agriculture has been doing a good job for Canadians.

July 29, 1982
Canagrex
In addition, I think this bill is important because it addresses the export performance of the agricultural industry. We are all aware of the hard economic times we have been going through in which interest rates have been causing severe problems for small business and farmers. The one bright spot in the economy, probably the brightest, is the fact that agricultural exports from Canada continue to earn record amounts of foreign currency. Not only is agriculture important for our domestic wellbeing in providing us with a high standard of living, it is also important with respect to our foreign exchange. Every day in question period we are told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and we are told time and again by the governor of the Bank of Canada that we have to protect the value of the Canadian dollar because if we let it fall our imports will cost more money. This includes imports of food such as oranges from Florida, and other fruit and fresh vegetables from California. As our dollar falls in value it makes those imports more expensive, which adversely affects the value of the Canadian dollar and adds to our interest rates.
To counter this reaction we are told that we must raise interest rates. I suggest one method for protecting the Canadian dollar without the necessity of raising interest rates to attract money into Canada which we have to repay is simply to sell those commodities which we produce. That is precisely what agriculture has been doing. I submit that it has been doing a good job here as well.
This bill basically deals with agricultural exports. I think that many of us justifiably feel that Canadian companies and producers have generally been doing a good job in maintaining exports. Certainly, the government has a role to play in the export field. The reason for my amendment is that many people feel that the government should not be directly involved in exports. Many of us feel that the government does have a role to play in helping not only agricultural exports but all exports of Canadian produced commodities. But I would submit that that role should be primarily to keep Canadian producers as productive and therefore as competitive as possible with foreign countries. Our chief agricultural competitor, as we all know, is the U.S. It should be this government's main job in terms of agricultural exports to see that the Canadian farmer is able to compete on a favourable basis as far as costs of production, interest rates, fuel prices, trading arrangements, and tariff and non-tariff barriers with the Americans.
We are dealing with a very important topic here this evening. Just to quote the figures, the total agricultural industry produced something like $17 billion worth of goods last year. That is a lot of money. Of those goods, we exported a great amount. We also imported some, but if one takes the amount of goods exported out of the country and subtract that from the goods that we imported, one finds that agricultural exports were still in a $4 billion surplus position. That is a very important factor in relation to our foreign exchange, keeping our dollar competitive and keeping us competitive with the Americans.
To discuss the bill in somewhat general terms, since the amendment before us this evening is to the long title, our basic concern on this side is with the buy and sell provisions of the measure, with the provision which will allow Canagrex, if passed in its present form, to engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada. The bill is presently entitled, "An Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex, to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada". The motion would simply remove the words "and engage" from the long title, which would then read, "An act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote and facilitate the export of agricultural and food products from Canada".
We need the promotional aspects of this bill and some of the other things that the bill would provide. For instance, we would welcome the additional financing and credit guarantees that it would provide. If one looks at the list of amendments that we have proposed from this side, one will find that the majority of them express a concern over the buy and sell provisions of the bill. They are related to Clause 14 of the bill which would give this Crown corporation the power to become really involved through joint ventures and even to go as far as becoming engaged in the actual production of food in this country.
The government has a responsibility and a legitimate role to play with regard to exports. Among them would be the promotion of agricultural goods around the world. It also has a role to play with regard to credit guarantees when dealing with certain foreign countries where the risk may be great. The government may have a role to play in assisting private enterprise which is in the business of exporting agricultural products where the risk may be such that the private enterprise company could not stand the loss of a sale to a part of the world where credit may be a bit shaky. The government could assume some of that risk and assist in providing guarantees of credit.
Another area which is somewhat similar would involve export insurance, and I think the government has a legitimate role to play here. The fourth area which is implicit in the bill, and which we welcome, deals with the long-term and shortterm assessment and analysis of the demand by foreign countries for certain agricultural goods produced in Canada. Many of these things are presently being done. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has a very extensive program involving four or five areas to which I have just referred. In terms of the long-term supply and market demand and analysis of what is going on in other parts of the world, it would indicate to Canadian exporters where they should be looking. We do have trade commissioners in some 70 countries, the list of which I have in my hand. We do maintain commercial offices in our embassies, literally around the world. Just to name few of them, they include Algeria, Costa Rica, The Ivory Coast, Kenya, Morocco, Jamaica, Nigeria, Korea, Kuwait, Mexico, New Zealand and Pakistan.
The assessment of the witnesses we heard before the Agriculture Committee in relation to this bill was that those
July 29, 1982

commercial attaches and embassies around the world can be given much credit because they have been doing a good job. In addition, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has several programs, and I will outline a couple of them this evening. There is the Promotional Projects Program and its short title, or abbreviation, is the PPP. The department states that "the main objective of the Promotional Projects Program of the Department of Inquiry, Trade and Commerce is to promote the export of Canadian products and services". That would include Canadian agricultural products. The program consists of a number of sponsored promotions designed to meet particular requirements, and these include trade fairs abroad, trade commissions, in-store promotions, incoming trade delegations and buyer programs. That is precisely the kind of program from which agricultural exports can benefit.
I am told that these forms of assistance vary from project to project, where the government cost-shares travel arrangements for people who want to travel to potential markets and assess them on a first-hand basis. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce also assists people who are involved in actual sales ventures in other countries. Eligibility in such that the company involved must be established and operating in Canada and that the products which are being exported must be at least 60 per cent manufactured in Canada. Since agricultural products would be 100 per cent manufactured in Canada, those producers would have no problem meeting the criteria. In addition, the Export Development Corporation has a program providing export credit insurance. The purpose of this is to insure Canadian firms against non-payment when Canadian goods and services are sold abroad. Agricultural commodities qualify.
The Export Development Corporation also provides long term export loans. It provides sureties and related insurance for performance and foreign investment guarantees, insuring Canadians against loss of their investments abroad by reason of political actions. Those are some of the things which are presently being done by the government, and we must applaud it for that. Again, from what we have been told in committee, the people in the business of exporting agricultural commodities have made good use of that service, by and large. In addition, in March of this year, a news item in "Trade News", which was sent to my office, stated that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce had set up a new program under the EDC, specifically aimed at food, called PEMD Food, the Program for Export Market Development, specifically for food. This program was intended to cover the costs of people interested in developing export markets so that they could visit new markets, identify export potential and allow them to participate in trade fairs in order to bring potential foreign buyers to Canada and to allow for formal bidding on specific projects outside Canada. "Trade News" stated on page 3:
Normally, approved costs will be shared on a 50/50 basis by the department. These costs include personnel costs, travel costs, special costs such as booth
Canagrex
space, rentals, consultant and professional fees. The contributions are generally repayable-
This is interesting.
-if the project is successful and results in new export sales. Repayment may be waived in cases where the applicant is not a sales organization and where sales are not generated as a direct result of the project.
The promotional and export guarantees and the market intelligence which is provided for in this bill is now being provided by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce generally under its mandate but, more specifically, under a new program which has just been established by that department called the "Program for Export Market Development (Food)". Those of us who have followed this bill through committee really question why the government needs to set up another Crown corporation to compete with existing government programs already in operation.
The mention of Crown corporations brings another point to mind. This government has a penchant for setting up Crown corporations, to the extent that I do not think anyone really knows how many Crown corporations are in existence. We question why we need another Crown corporation to get involved and to compete with government departments already in the field when there are so many other Crown corporations already in existence and when we are having problems in terms of exercising proper financial control over many of those Crown corporations.
There are some very serious questions to be asked about this bill and particularly about the provisions in the bill which allow the government to get involved directly or engage in buying and selling agricultural commodities.
Let me deal with what I think should be the main responsibility of the government in terms of maintaining agricultural exports. Surely the main objective and the main preoccupation of the government should be keeping agricultural production in this country competitive. I submit-and I think I would be backed up by literally every farmer in the country-that this government, and particularly this minister, have been absolute flops at keeping Canadian agricultural producers competitive with producers around the world.
Let me compare our situation with that of our main competitor south of the border. I challenge the minister to do so. I know he will speak after me and ramble and make a lot of noise but, as usual, probably without making a lot of sense. He should look at hard facts about American producers. If he did that, he would realize that American farmers have access to financing at rates of interest lower than those paid by Canadian farmers. Many of us in this House have raised the issue with the minister and with the Minister of Finance of how we could use some American programs as examples of how to bring about lower financing costs for Canadian farmers. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) sitting beside the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). It is interesting that he is here tonight. I have had discussions with that gentleman about some of the programs the Americans have in place. Those programs allow American farmers to compete more favourably with us. I had discussions

July 29, 1982
Canagrex
with the parliamentary secretary's predecessor, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), about how we could do these things, but this government is not disposed to looking at measures which would allow Canadian farmers to remain competitive with their American counterparts.
Any farmer right across the country will tell us that the number one problem he faces is not grasshoppers or climate, whether it be lack of rainfall or hailstorms. It is not even the marketing of his commodity, what he can grow or what he can get for it, although price is a problem. The main problem Canadian farmers face now is high interest rates. I think the government should look at that problem very seriously and look also at some of the suggestions the opposition has been making. If the minister would care to talk to some farmers, he would learn that many of them now follow the weekly interest rate setting process which goes on at the Bank of Canada as regularly as they follow weather forecasts and the markets, because interest rates are now more of a determining factor in how long farmers will stay in business than the weather or the markets. Interest rates are very important. If the minister wanted to be fair about it and wanted to be serious, he would realize that the Americans have access to rates of interest which are lower than those paid by Canadian farmers. I submit that if we are to have increased agricultural exports, the first responsibility of this government is to make us competitive as far as interest rates are concerned.
The second thing we could do to make us competitive would be to do something about the fuel prices farmers pay. Several of us on this side of the House have raised this issue with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance with regard to the excise tax, the federal tax on fuels used for production of farm goods. We have all received letters from greenhouse operators. We all know the effect fuel prices have on the cost of agricultural production. American farmers are paying less for fuel than Canadian farmers. If the government were serious about doing something to keep us competitive on export markets, I think it would look seriously at reducing the excise tax on farm fuels. The federal government now takes between 40 cents and 60 cents a gallon on farm fuels. Many of us can remember buying fuel for half that amount. When I first started farming some 25 years ago, fuel cost 18 cents, 19 cents or 20 cents a gallon. Now the federal government is taking two times and three times that much per gallon just for excise tax.
That is only part of the story because as the federal government taxes natural gas, that shows up in increased prices for fertilizers.
In many ways Canadian farmers who consume petroleum products have the worst of both worlds. Canadian consumers generally pay very high prices for petroleum products. We are told increased prices are supposed to guarantee domestic supply, but at the same time this government is increasing its tax take on a gallon of fuel, and this is driving the domestic oil industry out of the country. When I say we have the worst of both worlds, I mean we not only are experiencing high prices but at the same time we are also driving Canadian production
down. It seems to me that the government has a responsibility to keep us competitive.
There are several other factors we could talk about in relation to keeping Canadian agriculture competitive in order to maintain our export advantage and to maintain our export markets. One factor is the way this government represents agricultural commodities when it negotiates trade and trade barriers with our trading partners. I think the last round of tariff negotiations in Geneva concluded in 1979, some three years ago. I submit that our agricultural commodities were badly represented by this government. We need only look at the guarantees we gave our trading partners respecting beef imports into this country. Let me talk specifically about the beef industry. We were negotiated into a position where the meat import law we have passed in this session is meaningless because no one stood up for Canadian agriculture at Geneva. If the government is serious about agricultural exports, it should do a better job of going to bat for Canadian agriculture as far as trade barriers are concerned.
We have an initial price for wheat which is set at $4.75 a bushel, which means that when the producer delivers a bushel of No. 1 red spring wheat, he gets something in the neighbourhood of $4.35 to $4.40 a bushel, once freight is taken off and allowance is made for a bit of dockage and shrinkage. In the European Economic Community wheat sells for about $9 a bushel. When we send a bushel of wheat to the European Economic Community to compete with the product there, a levy or excise tax is imposed which brings the price of our grain up to the level set by the European Economic Community. If this government were serious about doing something for agriculture, it could do something in this area. It could make some mileage there and help us export our products to other countries.
I can say the same things about Japan. Japan is very anxious to get certain kinds of agricultural exports from Canada. We know the Japanese are very competitive, ambitious and hardworking people, and we give them credit for that, but they are also very skilful in negotiating the best deal possible for their producers. Japan is very anxious to buy raw rapeseed, but does not particularly want to buy our rapeseed oil. If they buy the raw rapeseed, that provides jobs for the crushers in Japan. There is about a tenfold difference between the value of raw rapeseed oil and rapeseed oil. In other words, the Japanese buy from us about ten times as much raw rapeseed as refined oil. Of course that is good business for them because it means jobs for the crushers in Japan to turn the raw rapeseed into rape-seed oil. It does nothing to provide jobs for the processing industry in Canada, however. If the government seriously wants to increase agricultural exports that is an area where it could take some action.
We question why the government now wants to become directly involved in trading. Indeed, with the history of government generally, one would wonder why people want them to become involved in anything. As governments become larger

July 29, 1982

and larger, the people who vote have less and less control over them. Members of Parliament are asked to decide many, many things with one vote. Another Crown corporation is going to make it tougher for us to control government and see that it does a good job for the taxpayers who foot the bill.
One way in which the government could do something about keeping this country competitive in exports is by establishing a stabilization plan for beef. Last December the minister spoke about this, and the agriculture committee offered to hold an in camera meeting if he wanted to discuss it. That is eight or nine months ago, and we have not heard anything about it since. If the government wants a competitive beef industry in this country, it should ensure that there is uniformity in pricing from coast to coast. When the provincial treasuries of each province bid against each other in order to maintain their beef industry, it is apparent that this is not good for the long-range prospects of a national beef industry.
Whether the minister likes it or not, the beef industry is of major importance in this country. It is important to agriculture because it is a large consumer of feed grains. A stabilization plan with uniformity of pricing from coast to coast would keep it competitive. Fortunately, the beef industry has a long history in this country, so I do not think that even the minister, in the ten years he has been in office, could destroy it. It is more credit to the beef industry if it survives, however, than to the minister.
I find it strange that the government wants to become involved in exporting some of these commodities without fulfilling its obligations at home to keep them competitive. I could make the same comments about a stabilization plan for hogs. There should be a national plan along the same lines as a beef stabilization plan, but no leadership has been shown by the federal government.
In April the Farm Credit Corporation Act, Bill C-88, was amended to allow the corporation to borrow funds by any means with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance. We have not seen any results from that as yet. There is a new head of the Farm Credit Corporation, and we give him credit-no pun intended-for the qualifications he brings to the job, and we wish him well in it. I would urge him to do what he has to do posthaste, however, because agricultural producers are facing very serious financial problems. An export Crown corporation would be meaningless if all our producers were out of business. The minister needs to do his homework and see that the provisions of Bill C-88 are implemented so that additional funds are made available to producers as quickly as possible.
I should like to deal with the minister's attitude toward the buy and sell and "engage in" provisions of the bill, Mr. Speaker. It has been said, and 1 will repeat it, that some of the functions set out in the bill are already being carried out by one or more government agencies or departments, so it seems that the government must want this bill in order that it may become more directly involved in the export of agricultural commodities. In fact, at committee the minister said so-in a very crude fashion which I found rather unfortunate. I will try to refine and clean up what he said, which was to the effect
Canagrex
that unless Canagrex is allowed to engage in the export of agricultural commodities it would be as useless as what I will call the mammary glands on a boar pig. I think this points to the government's deliberate intention to become directly involved in farming and the agricultural industry. We do not need that, Mr. Speaker.
By setting up a Crown corporation to promote and provide credit facilities, the government will provide competition for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is interesting that we could not persuade the Minister of Agriculture to allow the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to send its witnesses to the committee to set out how the provisions of this bill would compete or complement Canagrex. One would think that if the government were interested in providing services to taxpayers at the least possible cost, it should co-ordinate the efforts of the different departments to this end. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has a plan which pertains specifically to food, yet we did not have the opportunity of examining that program in committee and comparing it with the one that is proposed in this bill. 1 think we should be able to co-ordinate the programs to get the best value for our tax dollars.
Other problems came to light in committee. For instance, there are several commercial attaches with our embassies around the world who are strictly concerned with agriculture. I have to give credit to the former minister of agriculture in the Clark government, the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise). In his brief tenure in office he increased the number of agricultural attaches with a view to accomplishing some of the things this bill sets out to do. I have to give him a lot of credit for that because when he proceeded as quickly as he did, he showed he was interested in agriculture, that it was a priority and he was interested in getting the job done. But if we have a situation where Canagrex, in its present form as a Crown corporation, would be competing with the private sector for agriculture exports and an agricultural attache in Mexico City found a market for some white beans or navy beans, you would wonder where that information would go. Would it be made available as openly and freely to the private sector as it would be to the Crown corporation? You would think there would certainly be in some ways a conflict of interest there. That issue was raised several times in committee and is one which needs to be examined very closely because, by and large, the private sector has been doing a very good job as far as exports are concerned. There are several export firms in Canada competing with each other for export markets, but they can only compete fairly if every one of them has access to the same kind of information. Anyone who knows anything about marketing, particularly farm commodities, knows that if you go into a marketing situation and you are not equipped with all the information, then you are very much at a disadvantage.
It seems to me that in a situation where Canagrex was operating as a competitor to the private sector and there was information available from a federal government source, there would be some possibility at least of that information being

July 29, 1982
Canagrex
made available more readily to the Crown corporation than to the private sector. I find that a very disturbing kind of question and dilemma which is associated with this bill. It is disturbing from the point of view that the private sector is in business to make a profit and they pay taxes on that profit. Those taxes fund the government. So you could find yourself in a situation where the government was using taxes derived from the private sector to take unfair advantage in the marketplace. It is a very serious question which needs to be answered and it was not answered to my satisfaction and that of most of the members on this side, in the extensive airing the bill had in committee. So if the government is really interested in proceeding with this bill and doing what is right for Canadian agriculture, I would certainly urge it to accept not only this amendment but the rest of the amendments you grouped together, Mr. Speaker. I believe they were Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. They all have to do with the buying and selling as far as the Crown corporation is concerned. That would certainly signal to the agricultural community that the government is not as interested as it was in getting directly involved in the export of their products.
There are some other amendments, Mr. Speaker, having to do with better management, a sunset clause, a better accounting system as far as reporting back to the House is concerned, and those kinds of things. But the main objection we have to the bill is the fact that it will allow the government, because of the widespread powers in Clause 14, to willy-nilly get into the agricultural commodity export business. Let me sum up by saying I think the government has a responsibility to Canadian agriculture. By and large, as far as the export of agricultural commodities is concerned, I think it has been doing a fairly good job, but I submit the main responsibility it has is to create and maintain a healthy economic climate at home so that our producers can remain competitive. After all, the thing that is going to sell our agricultural products is price. If we can remain competitive and offer an assured supply at a fair price, that is basically what is needed to maintain and increase our agricultural exports. That should be the main preoccupation of this government and this minister.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill tonight. I also appreciate following the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) who always seems to present his agruments in such a reasonable fashion.
After a couple of hundred years of the existence of agriculture in Canada we have a nation which is very dependent on agriculture and where it is still a major industry. But over that period of time things have changed considerably from a basic approach of survival where the farmer raised what he could for himself and helped to keep his neighbour alive by selling or trading with him, to that point where agriculture is a major part of the Canadian economy. It has become one of the most important factors in our world trade. For example, our exports of agricultural products in the period from 1971 to 1975 were about $3 billion. By 1980 they reached $7.8 billion, and have of course increased since then. That represents an increase of
about 261 per cent. It is also very important to note that our surplus of agricultural products exported over those imported is more than $2.7 billion. Compare that with our over-all surplus and our balance of trade for 1980 of $5.25 billion. Agricultural products represented over 50 per cent of the total trade surplus, while accounting for only 10 per cent of our total trade in dollars. That is a pretty good record which the agricultural industry has built up over the years.
The bill, Mr. Speaker, is an attempt by the government to increase that expansion still further. However, I have some worries about this bill and the approach the government has taken to agriculture. The government does not deal with some of the real concerns of the farmers, concerns which every member of this House recognizes and is aware of. Indirectly, possibly, the development of a corporation to increase farm exports would really be worthwhile. But it is interesting to note that this bill has taken a long time to get through this House. First reading was on December 8, 1981. Second reading started on January 25, 1982, and we are now only at the report stage. Part of the reason for this situation is that the official opposition have spent a lot of time on this bill in committee, in fact approximately six months. This is a little surprising when you look at the initial support the official opposition gave to the bill. For example, I will quote from a speech by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) who said, speaking of the bill on January 25:
I welcome it because it is at least an indication that this government at long last is showing some interest for the time being in the promotion of agriculture or the sale of agricultural products. I wonder why it took some ten months, from February to December, to prepare this legislation when farm organizations and farm leaders have been requesting this type of scheme for at least Five or six years. I can recall my first introduction to the Canagrex concept when it was brought to the attention of our caucus back in 1973.
He goes on to say:
It should also be noted that even the February 20 announcement came one year after the 1980 election, and in that campaign Canagrex formed a very integral and important part of the Liberal Party's agricultural platform. If this government had acted upon this promise a year and a half ago and had given priority to increasing agricultural exports, then our agricultural industry might not be experiencing the same severe economic distress which plagues it today.
That is a very concise statement indicating the kind of support that we need for some form of push to be given to exports if we are going to increase our agriculture structure by exports.
Part of the reason for this delay was also caused by the rather antiquated procedures by which bills are brought into the House and are passed by it. For instance, if the official opposition and even members of the government had had the opportunity to make suggestions to this bill before it was drafted, I am sure that it would not have taken nearly as long to get through committee stage. The only weapon the opposition has in changing a bill is, I suppose, delay. It is very unfortunate because that is exactly what the official opposition did. The bill was delayed by the official opposition to make amendments which may have been unnecessary had this House
July 29, 1982

had the opportunity to make some contribution to the drafting of the bill rather than leaving it to the bureaucrats.
Since I have been here I have found that bureaucrats seldom have a real insight into what members want in a bill. 1 am not speaking only of members of the opposition but of members of the government as well. The official opposition has concentrated its attack on the ability of Canagrex to take an effective part in agriculture. The actual sale of goods or the ability to stockpile, if you wish, to purchase and to sell certain products might have a detrimental effect on agriculture. That is the basis of the official opposition's position.
The official opposition has also suggested that it does not want such a corporation to be able to dictate prices, establish quotas and so on. There is some inconsistency in the position of the official opposition. It shows up again in a speech made by the hon. member for Elgin who said:
One of the major problems facing Canagrex will be its effectiveness in view of its very limited budget and staff.
He went on to say:
However, with these massive reductions from the minister's own personal assessment of minimum standards for Canagrex, I wonder whether the corporation will be able to perform adequately the role laid out for it in Bill C-85.
The danger expressed by the hon. member in that speech is that Canagrex is not big enough. Since that time, we have had a number of approaches by the opposition. We have heard them say that Canagrex is too big or that it might get too big.
Again, a whole area of concern, not only of the official opposition but of members of the government and members of my party is the accountability of Crown corporations. This is not limited only to Canagrex but to all Crown corporations. Here I must give the official opposition a great deal of credit because its members stuck to the point. If we had been able to take part in drafting this bill, we may not have had to go through weeks of meetings concerning it.
As I said, members of the official opposition stuck to the point and, along with members of the government and members of my party, we have been able to create through this bill a corporation which will be the most accountable of all Crown corporations, certainly of federal Crown corporations. A lot of provincial corporations need this kind of accountability.
I want to go through just a couple of the clauses in the bill which point out the accountability. First let me refer to Clause 14. this is a somewhat controversial clause as you can see from the number of amendments put forward, Mr. Speaker. Those members who were in the committee hearings will recognize that it continually caused controversy because it lays out the powers and purposes of the corporation. Within it, in its present form, it has several limiting clauses which make it impossible for Canagrex to strike out on its own. It also limits the purchasing of property so that it can only make purchases for certain uses.
These clauses were proposed, or at least forced to some extent, by the official opposition. It should be noted that Clause 14(1) makes provision for the credit union system to be part of the financial structure of Canagrex. We thank the minister for this concession which was welcomed by the credit
Canagrex
union system in Canada. Second, Clause 29 provides financial controls which has the corporation report to the minister and have its account audited by the Auditor General. It further allows the Auditor General to proceed with a comprehensive audit when he deems it necessary. This would guarantee a referral not only to the Auditor General if he makes that decision, but to the minister, eventually to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and then back to Parliament. This is much more accountability than is required by any other Crown corporation in the federal structure, and there are some 400 of them. Lately the need for such accountability has been well pointed out, highlighted rather thoroughly, and underlined by a rather damaging report which was tabled not too long ago by the Auditor General in his partial comprehensive audit of the Canadian Dairy Commission. I think it might be interesting to make some comparisons between Canagrex and the Canadian Dairy Commission.
In order to be fair to Canagrex, I suppose I should review a bit of what happened to the Canadian Dairy Commission since it began. It has been subjected to three investigations on aspects of its operations in the past 19 months. There has been a report from Mr. Justice Gibson, an arbitration report from Mr. David Kates and a comprehensive audit by the Auditor General. These are the kinds of things which can happen to a Crown corporation if it does not have built into it the kind of accountability and security which I hope will be built into Canagrex.
Essentially these reports said the same thing about the operations of the Canadian Dairy Commission, namely, that there was little in the way of effective management for operating procedures to ensure that the Canadian Dairy Commission performs effectively. In the drafting of the Canagrex bill some of these things were taken care of by the very fact that they will have to be referred to the Auditor General and then back to the minister.
Our party supports orderly marketing. We want supply management to work well where it has been established, but we have some difficulty supporting the workings of an agency which has performed as badly as the Canadian Dairy Commission. If we are to have the kind of agency that we can accept, we must be sure that it will have the kind of accountability that makes it work well.
I should like to refer to three other sections of the act. Clause 31 requires that the corporation operate according to a three-year plan. Clause 40 requires an annual report which will be referred to the minister and then to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Clause 41 requires that the act will be referred to the House for review after five years. I hope these sections will make this particular agency much more acceptable and much more accountable to Parliament.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, 1 must say that the hon. member surprises me by the shortness

July 29, 1982
Canagrex
of his speech. I did not expect him to quit so soon, so 1 was reading some documents at my desk.
I am amazed by some of the things which have been said about the corporation we are proposing-Canagrex. The hon. member who just finished speaking referred to the fact that it was mentioned many years ago. As he pointed out, we in our party used it as part of our party platform in two different election campaigns. It was not hidden from the public. As late as this evening, I have been told, certain individuals on the news said that Canagrex would have a monopoly. I say that is an untruth and a falsehood. There is no way that it could possibly have a monopoly even in the first instance and, even more so, since the amendments were made in committee by members on different sides of the House. They suggested that we amend it so that it can only enter into a venture when requested to do so. 1 do not understand how these people can say the things which they said as late as this evening on public electronic media broadcasting. I say, "Shame on them" for what they are saying because they know darned well that it is not true.


Charles James Mayer: What is not true?


Eugene Whelan: There are no monopoly powers granted under the Canagrex act. The hon. member knows it as well as I do, and they know it as well as I do. But they have planted the fear in people's minds that farmers will not be able to sell anything at all unless it is sold through Canagrex. I say that that is an outright falsehood, and they know that it is an outright falsehood, as far as that goes. They are guilty of a misdemeanour.


Charles James Mayer: You do not even know what a misdemeanour is.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, 1 was as docile as I could be while they were talking. I cannot understand why they are a little aroused now. 1 am putting some of the facts on the record.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you go back to reading?


Eugene Whelan: Perhaps I will refer to a letter which I was reading earlier. It reads:
Dear Mr. Whelan:
Thank you for the strength you bring to the cabinet and the government of our great country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Kempling:: You wrote it yourself.


Eugene Whelan: It is a very short letter. It continues:
I sincerely pray that you may overflow with God's wisdom and strength as you continue to wholeheartedly serve Canadians.
It is from a man way out in Vancouver, British Columbia. I could read thousands of letters like it, if hon. members opposite want me to.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I receive many good letters about what I am doing and what the government is doing in Canada. I will read from another one. This is from Walter E. Kroeker in Manitoba. He wrote:
Let me assure you that there was a full appreciation of your efforts in Arostook County. It would have warmed your heart to imagine all these growers as your constituents!
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you know where that county is. It is in potato country not very far from your constituency. They were saying what a great job I was doing on behalf of Canadian potato growers, and that it was making it impossible for the United States to compete with potato growers in Canada. That huge, big country could not compete with Canada because of what we have done for potato growers. He ends up his letter, Walter does-and he is an old friend of mine but of a different political faith, I believe-by saying:
I would respectfully urge that there be no new programs for potato growers, and especially, no stabilization programs. Not included in this recommendation are assistance efforts directed toward offshore exports only, such as Potatoes Canada and, when operational, Canagrex.
That is what Walter wants. Walter is a former president of the Canadian Horticultural Council of Canada. He is a very successful entrepreneur in potato production and in other kinds of agricultural production in the province of Manitoba. He is very active in the broadcasting field, the seed production field, etc. He is one of the most knowledgeable men in all of Manitoba. I am sure the hon. member who led off this discussion would virtually agree with that. That is the kind of letter Walter wrote me. I say, "Wonderful", thank you, Walter". He has a member who sits right across from me who is his brother-in-law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: When the hon. member talks about the United States, I am sure he is aware of that great big country and its great big trading and enterprising system. They have the amended law 480 to give them tremendous powers to dump their products.
The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) has asked several questions in the House about what we will do if the United States Secretary of Agriculture uses law 480 and the powers which he has. He is worried about it, and he has every reason to be worried about the powers which they have under law 480. They can buy and sell. They can establish facilities in other countries for processing of any product they want. They can do that in their great free-enterprise system in the United States.
What have they done with the Webb-Pomerene bill? United States legislators voted in 1916 giving power to establish a cartel to determine price. They enacted the law, which has never been used since 1916, but the government of the United States of America saw fit to put it into practice now and to give them a cartel over poultry.
July 29, 1982

None of our marketing boards have such a thing. None of the provisions we are proposing in the Canagrex Act would even suggest such a thing, and it makes me so mad that they go to the extremes that they do to say that we are giving cartel powers, that we are giving authority to have monopoly in Canagrex.
I am almost tempted to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a damn lie, but I would not go so far as to say that. It is just an untruth, that is all, a very bad untruth.
1 am most surprised by the amendments that have been put forth by the opposition members in relation to the Canagrex legislation. The fact of the matter is that the bill has gone through a gruelling four months of debate. As the hon. member for Price Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) said, it was introduced in December, and was four months in standing committee, during which time more than 30 organizations and companies came forward with their comments and criticisms. And there were a lot of them. Many were legitimate and we paid attention to many of them. We reviewed all the presentations that were made to the committee. Acting on constructive suggestions that we heard during those hearings, we made a number of important amendments to the original bill. In fact, 11 of the 14 amendments approved by the all-party committee are substantive and the other three deal with language.
Among the amendments that have already been made to this bill is one brought in by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) which is three pages long. It does what the hon. member for Prince Albert says, that is to make sure there can be no vested interest by the directors or the management of this board. It is a direct replica of part of a bill that they introduced when they were the government of Canada, and I agreed to that.
I agreed also to the amendments of the hon. member for Prince Albert whereby the Auditor General would make a review every year. I do not know if he knows this, Mr. Speaker, but it is the first time in the world that that will be done. No other Crown corporation in the world is automatically subject to a complete review every year.
So they say we are building a huge monster. The fact is that it is subject to scrutiny as is no other Crown corporation in any province, in any federal system, in any democracy in the world. I have readily agreed to that, to show how sincere I am, to make sure it is going to run right, yet they said, "Who is this fellow Whelan?" I challenge you to find anything with which 1 have had anything to do before or since I came to this House that was run badly, and if we found it to be so that we did not do something about it. My record is pretty darn good and 1 am proud of it, as far as that goes. I have dealt with big corporations, little corporations, etc., much more than those who would criticize me and hide behind somebody else. Some of them are in the House tonight, I am told, and I was looking to see where they are. They are supporting some of the worst marketing systems in the world and leading a revolution against Canagrex-for what? I will touch on that later.
As I said, we have made these amendments, we have made these concessions, we have leaned over backwards to make sure
Canagrex
that we guaranteed that we were not creating any kind of a monster.
As Canagrex is now constructed in the bill, we have a potent tool to assist in expanding exports and at the same time we have numerous safeguards for both the private sector and the taxpayer.
Of the 14 amendments we have before us, only one is a government amendment, and it is merely a language change, a correction. Nine of the remaining 13 amendments are identical to the ones proposed by the Conservatives in committee, which gave rise to the extensive amendments that we have agreed to.
As their spokesman indicated on July 8, the amendments were dealt with in a fair manner. Eight of the opposition's amendments are aimed at taking away Canagrex's power to engage in exports when requested to do so. I will deal with those amendments as a group, but first I would like to speak to the other five amendments which would have us do the following things: exclude beef from Canagrex's realm of operation, and you, Mr. Speaker, have already made the ruling on that, and you were going to allow the mover of that amendment to raise his objections at the proper time; restrict the president or a director to no more than two terms of office; force the publication of the directors' salaries and expenses; impose a sunset clause.
The hon. member who led off the discussion today says that what they needed was stabilization for beef. He said there has been no offer of leadership in this. Let him come with me to my office and I will show him the presentation that we made in 1978 to the provinces, Mr. Speaker, 100 per cent of income insurance for all products. Who objected to that? Several of the provinces did. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association did; the Canadian Federation of Agriculture did, because they said it was too good, it was too lucrative, and today, in 1982, they are asking for basically the same thing that they turned down in 1978. One hundred per cent of income insurance I offered them. They said, "You will have no controls over production, you will have farmers producing like you cannot imagine if you have that kind of system." I thought it was a pretty good system. I had cabinet approval. When the hon. member for Elgin was minister of agriculture, he withdrew it. He said it was going to be too costly.
They want me to go ahead with a program like the one in Alberta, and Alberta has lots of money. They are putting into the beef industry in that one province this year, as the minister of agriculture told me at our provincial federal ministers' meeting several days ago, $158 million. That is that great, free enterprise, productive system? Mr. Speaker, that is a form of welfare. I cannot imagine them taking welfare for such a productive, efficient entity, and it is a very efficient, productive entity. There is none any better in the whole world. They do not have that system in the United States, no way do they have that system. They do not even have the stabilization program that we have, that many people say is obsolete at the present time. I just say that about the programs that we have in Canada, as was pointed out in the hearings both in Boise,

July 29, 1982
Canagrex
Idaho, and in Bangor, Maine, about the potato programs that we have that are too good.
You know, Mr. Speaker-well I will not ask you to make comments, because I know you cannot in your present position, but I know you could, and I know you would if you could, I should say.
I will speak on the last point first. It is on Motion No. 14. A sunset clause is what they call it. In effect it presumes that Canagrex is guilty unless proven innocent and puts the corporation to death at the end of five years unless it is rescued through extraordinary measures. I understand that the intent of the sunset clause is to ensure that the government carries no deadwood, that it only maintains agencies that are proven effective. I believe we have answered that concern through the amendment that we put forth in Clause 41. In that clause we agreed that after five years Canagrex's operation should be brought before the Standing Committee on Agriculture for report and full review. This is a much more meaningful process than the sunset clause. It will provide for an effective scrutiny of the agency, but it also presumes that Canagrex as a business will continue to function.
Tell me, Mr. Speaker, how could we attract top people to the agency if they had to assume that that agency would not be around after 1987? How could we get some highly skilled persons to move, say, from Alberta, a province that has been very successful at exporting and whose organization has the power to buy and sell? They said they were not successful until they were granted in Alberta the power to buy and sell?
While I am talking about Alberta, maybe we should put on the record how many Crown corporations they have in Alberta. They have 18. Many of them have the power to buy and sell. They even have an airline, they have a trust company, they have many Crown corporations.


Charles James Mayer: Would the minister accept a very brief short question?


Eugene Whelan: When I am finished, with pleasure.
I just finished mentioning all the successful Crown corporations which the province of Alberta has. There is the Alberta treasury branches, and I could give you a whole list. I am amazed at the number there are in Alberta. As well, look at the amount of land Alberta has leased to farmers-state-owned land that is farmed. There are millions of acres under that kind of program. No one says that Alberta is grabbing all the land. No one says anything like that. For instance, that was not said when I met the new premier of agriculture in Saskatchewan. How many Crown corporations do they have in Saskatchewan? They have 24. I asked the minister if he was going to get rid of those Crown corporations that he has the power to buy and sell. He laughed. He said, "Not if they are making money. Not if they are being run well." I will bet you that they will not get rid of one, because if you look at the records, those corporations are all doing pretty well. I can go as far east as we can go, to Newfoundland. How many Crown
corporations do they have in Newfoundland? They have 37. The minister of agriculture for Newfoundland told me in Halifax that his government is creating three new ones to assist the agriculture industry in Newfoundland. They have the power to buy and sell. He said, "I do not see very much wrong with what you are doing. I do not really see anything wrong."
When the members from Alberta in particular really study their Crown corporations, they will see that they have imagined that I am creating something that is different from what is there. Your own livestock people have admitted that they could not be successful until they have the power to buy and sell. When they appeared before the committee they admitted the difficulties they had with the present federal program to assist them in exporting live cattle to Mexico. They could not do it. I even became involved in the issue with IT & C as a minister trying to assist them. We could not assist them, but we will under Canagrex.
I will not list all the Crown corporations, but a quick review of the list shows that the provinces have over 200. It is true that we have Crown corporations in the federal system, but certainly there are Crown corporations as well in the provincial system. I just have to mention Ontario Hydro, for instance, which is a monster which has the power to expropriate, buy and sell and do everthing else.
Agricultural development is a long-term process. It is not the kind of thing that lends itself to the quick and dirty kind of atmosphere that the sunset clause would create within the Canagrex office. That clause means you could walk in and kill them at the end of five years, no matter how successful they are. However, if the committee finds that Canagrex is ineffective when a five-year review is conducted, the committee could recommend its demise.
The next amendment I would like to discuss is motion No. 2 which would delete beef cattle and the beef products from Canagrex's possible realm of operation.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the hon. minister but I believe he is addressing an amendment that has been ruled out of order by the Chair.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) said that he would bring it up later. The hon. member who led off the discussion spoke about everything. There is nothing in the bill about gasoline, taxes or anything else. He was involved in everything. He talked about just everything I ever did or said. I had my hearing aid turned off but I even heard some of what he said. I was told that I did not miss much either.
I would like to quote from a letter which I received from the Canadian Hereford Association in January. It says:
We look forward to utilizing the services of Canagrex to help us expand our international markets.
I have also heard from many other smaller organizations and firms in the beef business who have expressed their
July 29, 1982

support for Canagrex. They seem more than satisfied, especially since we made the amendments, that we will not just go in and gobble them up like some have suggested. That was never our intention. Every one of those members knows that. That is true for those sitting in the gallery who also may have some concerns. Instead of selling products, they are trying to stock beef and have a little organization to sell it. Some of them are sitting in the gallery. 1 know who they are, I know what they are doing here. They are lobbying for their own hide.
It is because some people see themselves as the good guy having a shoot-out with the bad guy government that they allow themselves to overlook the concerns of many of the country's beef producers simply because they do not share their prejudice against governments. Do not forget that Canagrex's services are voluntary. As I said several times, they are not compulsory, but those hon. members believe that if they say it loud and clear enough people will believe them. They have implanted this in people's minds.
I was on a hot-line show which ran as far north as Edmonton to as far south as Calgary. A young farmer said to me on that show, "I will not be able to sell anything unless I sell it through you." That is what those members have them believing. I cannot understand how any good Member of Parliament could ever try to create that kind of thought in a person's mind. We have made the amendments which allowed for voluntary action and provided for joint ventures, but these hon. members were still saying it as late as today. Some of you know that. You know that it is wrong, too.


Charles James Mayer: Name one member who said it.


Eugene Whelan: I am amazed that members would say things like that. The services are voluntary. Its services can only be used in relation to export markets in co-operation with or at the request of governments. Those members have farmers believing that if they want to sell a calf they have to do it through Canagrex, through the local butcher. That is garbage. These services can only be used in relation to export markets, as I said, in co-operation with or at the request of governments, Canadian companies, co-operatives, marketing boards, associations or other Canadian enterprises or individuals carrying on business in Canada. Is there something wrong with that? Those people who use the trade services now like them because they are relatively free. We get involved in many trade promotion programs and they take part in them. It costs the Department of Agriculture money, but we are very proud of the trade promotion we work on with IT & C. We want to expand upon it. We do not want to be stymied when it comes time to make a deal, and they cannot do so or they will not because there are not the necessary guarantees, and they cannot be provided that kind of guarantee under any legislation which exists at the present time unless they try to combine three or four measures. Even that combination cannot always accomplish the final contract which is needed.
Motions Nos. 3 and 4 would restrict the tenure of the president and the directors to two terms. I wonder if the
Canagrex
opposition would care to make the same restriction apply to Members of Parliament?


Mr. Deans:: Yes.


Eugene Whelan: Some are suggesting that we go to the Republican system. I heard that comment even without my hearing aid. I believe the democratic process to be very good, as far as I am concerned. Some of us continue to come back here, regardless of what the opposition says.
Obviously, the reason we would not want to place the two term restriction on the directors is that we would prevent ourselves from keeping valuable people on the board. At the same time, the three-year or five-year term gives the government an opportunity to replace people who are not measuring up to what we expect. I am sure that is what hon. members would want. I would just add that in a field as vast as the international agri-food trade, the more experience a person has, the more valuable he will be to Canagrex and to Canada. It would be foolish to dump them just because they had served their terms.
Motion No. 5, dealing with publishing the director's salaries and expenses, is something that the board itself would have to decide.
The eight remaining amendments were dealt with extensively in committee and they add up to one thing: stripping Canagrex of its power to engage in exports when so requested. They would restrict Canagrex basically to providing marketing information, promotion, credit and grants. Those services are important, but they must be part of a total package that includes the ability to engage in exports when necessary in the limited circumstances set out in the amended bill. Without that ability, Canagrex will not be seen as an active, potent partner of the Canadian agricultural industry as we want it to be.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has some strong views. 1 would like to quote from a letter dated July 27 from the President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. It states:
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture board of directors meeting today has reviewed its position regarding the Canagrex legislation in light of the amendment to the bill as reported in the agricultural committee report and reaffirms the position previously indicated to the government in the agriculture committee. To repeat, the CFA, in its early submission, made it clear that the whole purpose of Canagrex is to have an operational agency that can, in appropriate ways, engage in export activities as agent, broker, participant in joint ventures, and it is desired by the governments of some importing countries as an exporter. The CFA still strongly supports that position. The other authorities as provided in Bill C-85 are also important but do not in themselves constitute an adequate basis for action by Canagrex. The CFA has made it clear that Canagrex must approach its work on a go-slow basis while it gains experience, must operate co-operatively and not competitively with co-operatives, the private trade and producer boards and organizations, and must avoid-
It is a big word. They do not want bureaucratization.


Marcel Prud'homme: Next time don't write that, okay?

July 29, 1982
Canagrex


Eugene Whelan: It is a very long word and that is a quote by a farmer. It goes on to state:
The CFA also reiterates its strongly held position that the majority of the board of directors be representatives of producer organizations.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Who signed that?


Eugene Whelan: Glenn Flaten, the President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He is from Saskatchewan.
The important thing to remember in this whole question is that in committee we had unanimous support for an amendment stating that Canagrex will only become involved in buying and selling products in co-operation with or at the request of other governments, Canadian companies or Canadian producer organizations. Canagrex cannot go out into the market on its own initiative. It was never the intention to have Canagrex engage directly in farming or processing, and this is assured by another amendment to Clause 14 as approved by the committee. Why in the world would it want to be involved in that? That is what I cannot understand. It would only be involved as part of joint ventures with the private trade. Private trade has been requesting that for many years, even before I was Minister of Agriculture. It wanted more assistance for those perishable products in which they are dealing, the sale of which on the world market involves a tremendous risk.
Let us consider some of the other provisions of the amended bill which further ensures that the private trade will benefit as a result of Canagrex. The most obvious fact is that most of the people on the board of directors will be supplied and selected from the private sector. They will understand exactly what kind of assistance is needed to maximize this country's export of agri-food products and they will be subject to strict conflict of interest rules, as I already said. These rules are contained in the amendment put forward in the committee, and I searched it, by the hon. member for Elgin and are contained in the amended bill. If one checks the legislation on the books in any province, or in the federal system, one will probably find only one other bill which has that amendment providing for the strict conflict of interest rules. Furthermore, this will be backed up by a policy advisory committee of people from all over Canada. Never has there been such preparation or thought behind a bill to ensure that all suspicions would be alleviated. I would put the operation of Canagrex against the operation of any private company, any co-operative or any marketing board because of these amendments which were made, and I accepted some of them from the members of the opposition who said I was stubborn, I would not bend, I would not listen-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: You never did.


Eugene Whelan: -I would not accept any of the motions. I would advise hon. members that I accepted them, because I can well remember the night when 1 said I would accept this and I would accept that. I thought the hon. member for Elgin had the whole committee convinced that we were ready to bring the bill into the House and give it swift and speedy
passage, because many people in the part of Canada from which he comes are 100 per cent behind Canagrex.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: They are getting further behind, too.


Eugene Whelan: The public is protected through a number of means. Perhaps the main one is that Canagrex must submit annually a revised three-year corporate plan. I ask hon. members, what other Crown corporation can one think of that does that?


Mr. Mazankowski:: VIA Rail.


Eugene Whelan: We have been checking to find out how many do. There are very few which must do that kind of thing, which is binding, which will form the basis for its strategy and its budget for the year. A summary of the corporate plan will be made in public but, of course, yearly details must be kept confidential because they are in competition with other companies in the world. There are few government agencies that are subject to such stringent safeguards and restrictions. I think one can probably count them on the fingers of one hand. With the amendment I have made, I believe the Canagrex legislation is well balanced in terms of its modified purposes, powers, checks and its operations. I believe we can go no further without crippling Canagrex unfairly.
I urge the House to defeat the 13 amendments proposed by the opposition at report stage. As I said earlier, these points have been extensively debated during committee, and their constructive aspects have already resulted in extensive amendments which were approved by the committee.
1 would ask that the House approve the government's one amendment, Motion No. 13, which is simply a language change. In short, to succeed in its job of reinforcing its role as a partner in export capabilities of Canada and the food industry, Canagrex must have the flexibility spelled out in the amended bill. So, we should go over the facts and the history and consider the power which I mentioned in the country with which we have the most similarity, the United States of America, and what it is doing at the present time. Right now we are living with deep concern about what the United States will do with its dairy industry. Four, five or six years ago, when we spoke with the United States about meeting with the countries involved in surplus industrial dairy production competing on the world market, and we asked to have a meeting, two former secretaries of agriculture in the United States said, "There is no need for such a meeting because we will never have a surplus of industrial dairy products." Because of the subsidization program in their country, without any control overproduction, it is costing $2.5 million a day, or over $2 billion annually. In a report given in Fredericton on Monday of this week, a USDA official said that it could cost the United States much more than that and that they do not know what to do. After speaking with Secretary Black, we felt that the United States could cut the price. It was his idea to cut the price to farmers and they would cut production. But because of cheap feed grain prices and its subsidization program, the
July 29, 1982

producers turned on their dairy production like one cannot imagine. There are over 500,000 tonnes of surplus industrial milk products. Secretary Black told me, "We do not intend to dump it on the world market to hurt any of our trading partners". I do not know what he will be forced to do. In the United States there will be an election in the fall and there are many rural ridings at stake. If one reads the proceedings of Congress and the Senate, one finds that they did not cut the price of the dairy farmers in the United States. They held it at the status quo and they are looking at the matter again. It is not expected that there will be any changes in the price of dairy products until after the New Year in 1983.
We have discussed trade, stabilization and prices. The hon. member mentioned prices for gasoline and we have made a comparison of prices for gasoline and for diesel fuel. There is not much difference in prices in the various areas of Canada and the United States. Some are just about even. Some are a little higher, but there is not the tremendous difference hon. members opposite seem to try to put across in this House at different times in questions and so forth. We have the facts and figures. They are long and detailed. Hon. members opposite talk about the tax on gasoline. Let them check and see where that revenue goes. That added increase in costs goes to refineries, provincial governments and the federal government. The actual federal tax on gasoline and diesel fuel in Canada is very small indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Neil:: Sixty cents a gallon.


Eugene Whelan: Hon. members opposite know full well that taxing is a different system than the sharing of revenue.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A tax is a tax.


Eugene Whelan: The table I have shows a breakdown of consumer prices for gasoline components including provincial sales tax, federal tax, royalties and taxes on crude oil, the petroleum compensation charge and payments to the oil industry.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Canadian ownership charge.


Eugene Whelan: We can give a complete breakdown of prices and taxes. The federal excise tax of 1.5 cents per litre is levied only on gasoline. It is rebated to all commercial users, including farmers, and there is no federal excise tax on diesel fuel, heating fuel or propane. I am talking about federal excise tax because that is what hon. members opposite keep referring to.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We are talking about federal tax.


Eugene Whelan: When we are talking about royalties and taxes on crude oil, that is a different thing. The producing provinces levy royalties and taxes on crude oil at the point the oil is sold or transferred to refineries. These taxes are estimated at 5.36
Canagrex
cents per litre for gasoline and can be regarded as being the same for farm fuel.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A tax is a tax, and you know it.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member knows full well that the provinces and the industry are taking the biggest share.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is not right.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member knows that full well, and he also knows full well that somebody must be taking a bigger rip-off in the United States when Americans pay a comparable price but do not have the same taxing system. Who is making the profit? There is not much difference in the price producers pay for their product.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We pay Alberta only $25 a barrel for oil. Where is the difference?


Eugene Whelan: The average price paid by farmers for gasoline ranges from a low of 29.1 cents per litre in Alberta to a high of 34.8 cents per litre in British Columbia. These estimates exclude the federal excise tax and provincial sales tax, with the exception of the 2.4 cents per litre levied in British Columbia. That is the only province which levies that kind of tax on fuel used for agricultural production. The average price paid by farmers for diesel fuel varies from 28.8 cents per litre in Alberta to 35.2 cents per litre in British Columbia, which is the highest of all.


Charles James Mayer: What do they do in North Dakota?


Eugene Whelan: I have a whole list which I will make available to anyone who wants to make a comparison of the costs farmers-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is deceitful.


Eugene Whelan: -pay in different regions in the United States and in different regions in Canada, but I can tell hon. members that there is not much difference. There may be a difference of one cent here or a cent there, but there is not much difference in the costs producers are paying.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What about the wellhead price?


Eugene Whelan: What the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is really saying is that in the United States some companies must be making tremendous profits because they are charging farmers the same. The difference is in the taxing system, if hon. members want to call it that. We have a revenue system which ensures we have greater ownership of our energy industry in Canada. The vast majority of the people of Canada, whether in the east or in the west, go along with that kind of program, and the hon. member knows that.
Canagrex is a corporation about which we have talked for a long time and needed for a long time to help make our agricultural exports what we all want them to be and what we all say we want them to be. We have one disagreement, and that is with respect to the power to buy, sell, own and so forth. There are many, many Crown corporations, provincial and federal.

July 29, 1982
Canagrex


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Too many.


William James Kempling: You don't need any more.


Eugene Whelan: Crown corporations in provinces from which hon. members on all sides come have these same powers. I do not hear hon. members condemning them for having that kind of authority right in their own backyards, but they condemn me for wanting this little farm organization called Canagrex to do a certain job. Hon. members opposite should read the minutes of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I was amazed today to hear about what a good job we are doing for agriculture. Mr. Speaker, you have been here long enough to have heard questions like "Why aren't you selling more?" Hon. members opposite have said that if it was not for wheat, we would have a great trade imbalance in Canada. Where are we selling all the other products? Hon. members opposite condemn the government and this minister when we try to do something to improve trade and assist entrepreneurs and private industry people so that they can compete with other countries in the world and have some kind of organization that assists them one way or another. Our people tell us continuously we cannot compete because we do not have the same guarantees and we do not have the same security.


Mr. Wise:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the minister's speech because he was enjoying himself so much during its delivery. However, knowing the minister as I do, I am sure he would not want to leave any inaccuracies on the record or mislead the House. He made some reference to the rationalization of stabilization across the country. He knows that was on the agenda of the provincial ministers' conference in 1978, and it was also on the agenda in 1979 when I was minister. The minister indicated he had a financial commitment from the Treasury Board. He is absolutely correct. Where the inaccuracy occurred was in an indication that when I was minister I withdrew support. That is not correct. That is inaccurate. The minister knows there was no more support for that type of program in 1979 than there was in 1978. The people who were against that program were against it for the reasons the minister mentioned tonight. He is absolutely correct. In addition, only about two of the ten ministers representing the provinces supported the plan; thus the reason for the discontinuation of that program.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the minister rising on the same point of order, if it is a point of order?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think my memory is pretty good. I am going by the record. When the hon. member was minister I do not believe he shredded any of the decisions he made or the transcripts of any of the discussions in which he was involved. If I have read the record correctly, he was the minister of agriculture at the time it was decided to withdraw the program. According to the notes I have seen, the reason was the cost of the program. I will do some double-checking and, if 1 find that I am wrong, I will readily apologize.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I have only two or three minutes left to me, and in that short time I would like to make several points. I was prepared to make a very
reasoned and, I think, reasonable argument and comment on the bill before us tonight. It is very difficult to be reasonable following the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). We have been treated to another vintage ministerial outburst which would well qualify the minister for any acting award, but it had very little to do with the important issue before us and the serious concern we on this side of the House have about some of the measures proposed in this bill.
The first point which should be made is that although the minister did not refer to a "damned lie" because that would have been an unparliamentary thing to say, he did comment on 17 different associations-which are too numerous to mention in the short time 1 have-which have very serious concerns. They represented themselves in the news media in much the same way the minister often does, and brought forward a very reasoned position on the bill.
The second point I would like to make before calling it ten o'clock is that people who read Hansard or are watching today should be reminded of the comments of the minister in the House in response to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) several days ago. The minister was responding to questions about promises he made regarding the prices of fuels and capital gains tax exemptions for farmers. He made promises to the agricultural community and to the Canadian public during the last election campaign. When responding to the hon. member for Vegreville, the minister said:
-I do not know what research the hon. member is using for all those statements that I made, because if he is reading speeches I gave during the election campaign, those were not prepared .... They were made in the heat of debate, you could almost say off the cuff, but there isn't any cuff there!
One hon. member said:
What is on your shoes?
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, in the past few days the country has been shocked by newspaper accounts of what happened in the penitentiary at Archambault and the tragedy visited upon the families of some guards who worked there. What happened to the guards, and the long-term agony the families have to face as a result of what has happened to their loved ones who worked at the prison, is indeed a tragedy. What is also of concern is the question this tragedy raises in the minds of the public across Canada.
July 29, 1982

As 1 told the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) in the House yesterday, we were informed by press reports that sometimes it is the practice to allow prisoners at Archambault to view pornographic films-at what level of pornography we do not know-and that in at least one of these showings topless dancers performed.
Serious questions have been raised in this House and across the country about how the prisons are being run and whether the objective of the prison authorities is to provide security for all Canadians. The Solicitor General denied yesterday that prisoners are being allowed to see these kinds of films. But, Mr. Speaker, why would the guards who work at the prison issue a statement to the press which the Solicitor General said is not true? What is in it for the guards who have to go to work next day? If they have been saying things to the press that are not true, then they have to face the administration which has, in effect, been libelled by them. Why would they issue a false statement in this case?
This points to a double problem. If the films are shown, and the allegations are correct that they are shown because the administration is afraid of the reaction of the prisoners if they are refused, there are two problems. First of all, what is the effect of those films on the prison population? Just this evening I spoke to a psychologist about this and he said that the fantasizing in the minds of those prisoners would be uncontrollable. If they are then released to society, what is to stop them from acting in the vicious manner they have seen in the film?
The second problem is that if the allegations of the guards are correct and the administration is allowing the films to be shown because they are afraid of the reaction from the prisoners if they are not, then who is running the prisons? Who is making the choices? Who is calling the shots?
The Solicitor General also said yesterday, in answer to my question, that the policy of the correctional system is to follow the classifications made by the film censors. Presumably films are classified because the public has a right to be alerted about the destructiveness of some of them. The public ought to enjoy that right, so the classifications are identified in the movie ads. If some are classified as being harmful to our general society, society can accept responsibility for its decisions. If it is possibly harmful to those people, is it not logical to assume that it is even more harmful to a group of people who are in prison because they cannot handle life in a normal society? We are in fact not dealing with a segment of normal society.
The minister says those films are shown according to classification, but what assurance does he have that those classifications are being followed in the showing of those films? How does he know whether the authorities in the prison system are clearly following the classifications issued by the officer in that particular province? Are the regulations being adhered to?
Adjournment Debate
If the classification prohibits viewing under certain circumstances, and those circumstances are very limited because those films happen to be very damaging, is it not reasonable to assume that those very regulations could be met by this society? For example, if a classification officer decides a film can be shown only to a stag club because it is that kind of film and should not be shown in mixed company or to the general public, does it not follow that the segment of the population within the prison would qualify as meeting the requirements of that particular classification, as happened in the B.C. Penitentiary about three years ago?


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


Benno Friesen: Just this one comment.


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


Benno Friesen: I call upon the minister to do a study across Canada of the correctional system to make sure that the regulations are being adhered to.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the following answer to that question.

The policy in general is to permit inmates to view only films that are approved for public showing by the film classification boards in the provinces in which the institutions are located. This is in keeping with the rule of law that an inmate continues to enjoy all his rights, just like a free citizen, except those taken away by law or by the nature of his confinement.

Mr. Speaker, the CSC acknowledges its responsibility with respect to both the security of the institution and the protection of the neighbouring community. It also takes the appropriate measures to make sure that the films shown in the institutions are consistent with the acceptable standards of the community and that they are censored by the film classification board of the province where the institution is located. Still, even after that important stage, the director general or the institution warden may decide not to show any film whatsoever if, in his opinion, it might disrupt order in the institution.
Before allowing the screening of a film that has not been censored by the film classification board, the warden must see and approve the film. In keeping with its policy, the department does not allow the screening of pornographic films or shows given by erotic dancers in penitentiaries. Indeed, the Solicitor General did make some comments on such a show a few years ago. The authorities had not in any way approved the show, but they felt at the time that any intervention might have compromised the safety of the artists.
As to the remarks of Coroner Maurice Laniel about the increasing use of cyanide in suicide attempts, I would simply
19844

July 29, 1982
Adjournment Debate
point out that never in a federal institution has an inmate committed suicide that way. We hope that the report of the inspector general will reveal how the inmates were able to obtain the cyanide, and we would be well advised to await his findings before deciding what measures should be taken to prevent such incidents.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-QUERY RESPECTING APPLICATION OF SIX PER CENT RULE TO TWO-PRICE SYSTEM. (B) ANNOUNCEMENT IN SENATE
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, 1 take part tonight in the adjournment debate as a consequence of a question I asked on July 21, 1982, of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in his responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board. It had to do with the government's proposed 6 per cent and 5 per cent guidelines. Having regard to the two-price system for domestic grain I asked whether the 6 per cent applies this coming year and the 5 per cent the following year to the increases that would be needed to assist the producers of grain in Canada to meet some of their costs. The minister told me at that time that he was unable to answer the question.
I went on to ask if the minister's assistant in the Senate had been mistaken when he told Senator Roblin that the 6 per cent rule would apply because the mechanism was already in place and that the rule should be continued.
The need for an increase in the price for domestic grain in Canada is very evident. When the two-price system for domestic grain started two years ago, the price was established at a floor of $5 and a maximum of $7 a bushel for No. 1 Canadian Red Spring wheat. In the last two years we have had an increase in the cost of input of between 23 per cent and 25 per cent. That increase will bring the floor price to $6.25 a bushel and the maximum price will go to $8.50 from $7.50 a bushel. These increases are less than adequate to meet the projected 35 per cent plus decrease in income for agriculture in the province of Saskatchewan, which produces about 50 per cent of the cereal grains grown in Canada.
I asked my question because the two-price system expires on July 31, 1982, two days from this evening. On at least three occasions the minister has been asked whether the price will be increased, whether it will remain the same and what are his intentions. On each occasion the minister has replied that he was unable to answer the question. I think it is incumbent upon the minister and the government to make known to the producers of grain in western Canada, the area where the two-price system applies, and what the government's intentions are for the next two years.
The two-price wheat system which was implemented back in 1975 has undergone many changes. Every time there has been a change there has been an increase, because the cost of production has been recognized. The increase in 1979 was made in the middle of the crop year. That increase was made by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) in his responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board. It was granted
because the cost of production was recognized and the producers were to receive the benefit of a domestic price for wheat.
I hope the parliamentary secretary who answers this evening will be able to announce what the domestic price will be in the coming crop year under the two-price system. Unless the announcement has been held off to give the domestic millers and the consumers of domestic grains in Canada an opportunity to stockpile the grain, to the detriment of the producers, 1 cannot understand why the announcement cannot be made tonight. If they are being given the opportunity to stockpile, I think it is wrong. It is against the interests of the producers of grain, and it is against the best interests of this government. I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to make an announcement tonight that the two-price wheat system will be increased from the present floor of $5 to a floor of approximately $6.20, and that the ceiling will be raised to approximately $8.50 as required by the cost of inputs necessary to produce grain.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity in answering the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) to describe the two-price wheat system, in order to explain the context within which the government is assessing the application of its administered prices policy on the price of domestic wheat.
Since December 1978, wheat sold for human consumption in Canada has been priced within minimum and maximum limits set by regulation. Since August 1980, these price limits have been, as the hon. member already mentioned tonight, between $5 and $7 per bushel for No. 1 Canadian Red Spring wheat. But he did not point out that for Durum the same minimum applies but there is no maximum. I was wondering what prices he would give for Durum at the minimum and maximum. The actual price within these limits is set by the Canadian Wheat Board on the basis of prevailing export prices.
The rationale underlying this mechanism is to provide protection for both producers and consumers from wide price fluctuations. I would contend that the system is serving its purpose adequately.
When the current limits were set in August 1980, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board undertook to review them in two years. Consequently, as the hon. member noted, they are now under review but do not, as he said, expire on July 31, 1982. They continue until replaced by new limits. I would like to make that correction. It can be seen that the manner in which the administered prices guidelines would apply is not immediately obvious. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board offered some thoughtful comments in the other place on July 7. Perhaps the hon. member would like to indicate how he would propose to deal with this question. He dealt with suggested prices, but not of various kinds of wheat.
July 29, 1982

In any event, I am confident that the review will yield a fair and equitable solution which will be announced in due course.


ENERGY-FUNDING FOR OIL EXPLORATION IN SENEGAL. (B) MACHINERY AUCTION SALE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all congratulate you on your elevation to your very lofty position. I know you will serve the House and the country very well and with distinction.
The policies of the federal government have caused a major disaster in the exploration and servicing sector of Canada's oil industry. The National Energy Program, combined with the economic policies of the government, has served to drive business upon business associated with the exploration and service industry into financial ruin and bankruptcy. For many who have spent a lifetime of work in building up these businesses, it leaves nothing more than bitter memories of their hard work, sacrifice and dedication in trying to make their businesses a success. There is anger and bitterness over the failure of so many companies associated with this industry. There is anger and bitterness directed toward the government, which is the most destructive and deceitful government that has ever served Canadians.
There are many examples I could highlight this evening, but I want to single out one which is really the substance of the questions I posed on July 9, as reported on pages 19175 and 19176 of Hansard. It concerns the liquidation sale of two firms in Lloydminster, Alberta, namely, Midway Oilfield Services and Weldex Machine. These two companies were doing very well. They were well-established and well-managed. They had been in business for years, and during the period of 1979- 1980, prior to the implementation of the National Energy Program, they were doing very well. The businesses were humming; 150 jobs were involved in their operations. In about February, 1982, the effects of the National Energy Program and of the economy served to bring these two businesses into very serious difficulty, and they were forced into receivership. The government refused to fundamentally alter its National Energy Program, which, and I suggest most people agree, has been one of the major contributing factors to the current recession.
By July, 1982, these two companies were forced to liquidate through an auction sale. On July 6 and July 7 in Lloydminster, Alberta, there was a huge auction sale to dispose of all assets of the two companies. I might say that the assets were worth in excess of $3.5 to $4 million. They sold at a public, unreserved auction sale for something in the order of 30 cents to 50 cents on the dollar.
Who came up to buy this equipment? It was mainly Americans who bought up the excess surplus equipment. The sale of that equipment was forced as a result of the bankruptcies. The Americans come up with their premium dollars, buy this equipment and take it back to the United States and put it to work. In this case, 150 jobs have gone down the drain.
Adjournment Debate
I could mention another company in Lloydminster as well; Universal Industries which was in the business of building pumps, tanks and other ancillary pieces of equipment associated with the oil service industry. In 1981 that company employed about 350 people. Today the number is down to 200. The firm has gone into receivership, and it will be lucky if it survives. If it does survive, it will probably end up with 100 people, at best.
I could cite many examples. One has only to pick up the Edmonton Journal and look at the sheriffs sales, the receivership auction sales, bankruptcy auctions, unreserved public auctions-I could go on, page upon page.
Two years ago, prior to the National Energy Program, the oil industry in this country was humming, there were some 500 rigs working in western Canada, either drilling, in transit, or in the process of being set up. Today there are less than 100; and when we look at the record we find that some 20,000 jobs have been lost.
The reason I pose the question is that in spite of all this we are spending money looking for oil in other countries. For example, we are spending money looking for oil in Jamaica, in Senegal, in Tanzania, in Bangladesh, in Pakistan and in Kenya while we are destroying our own industry right here in this country.
One should consider this great organization called Petro-Can. It has $250 million to spend looking for oil in foreign countries. I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to explain to my constituents why and how he could justify, in the face of these companies going bankrupt, during these economic difficulties, this time of recession, this time of restraint, the expenditure of this kind of money looking for oil which would add to the self-sufficiency of other countries rather than our own.
Specifically, I asked how he could justify Canada spending the sum of $16.9 million in aid to look for oil in Senegal. That is not all. A Jamaican deal that has been signed, and there is an upcoming deal with Tanzania for $25 million which is to be signed. There is another project worth $21 million. None of these deals will bring any return to Canada, and the oil will all belong to the foreign countries.
The policies of this government are closing companies here, and destroying our oil industry. This government is trying to make a great name for ourselves in the international world. The people in my area do not understand the reason for the double standard.
I learned in just the last couple of days that the federal government is going to bail out Maislin Transport. That is the first service industry I know of that is going to be bailed out by this government. This government is prepared to bail out Massey; it is prepared to bail out Chrysler; it is prepared to bail out Dome; it is prepared to bail out any of those companies which are friends of the government. It is prepared to provide grants and subsidies to those areas served by Liberal cabinet ministers while it deliberately destroys a once viable

July 29, 1982
Adjournment Debate
industry in western Canada. This must stop, Mr. Speaker. We must stop this blatant political patronage. We must stop this lunatic destruction. I can tell you, sir, I am convinced that this will only stop when this Liberal government is turfed out. Then we can get some sanity and order back in the country again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I join with my hon. colleague for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) in extending best wishes to you on being elevated to the Chair. I am as certain as he that you will do a very admirable job.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) made it very clear that such assistance to developing countries was not detracting in any way from the extensive and increasing support being given Canada's own oil industry through recently passed legislation and long-standing commitments. I need not remind the hon. member that just recently the Government of Canada provided, under the National Energy Program, in excess of $2 billion toward the oil and gas industry. This, coupled with the $5 billion provided by the Government of Alberta, makes a total of $7 billion in terms of tax concessions to the oil and gas industry which, I might add, is primarily located in western Canada.
In reference to the question raised by the hon. member with respect to money or assistance which is being provided to developing countries, I should say to him and his party that the economies of many developing countries are being seriously affected by the price they must pay for imported oil. Non-oil developing countries as a group have had current account deficits every year since the Arab oil embargo of 1973, and the
group deficit has grown from $11 billion in that year to $68 billion in 1980. This, of course, has much reduced their ability to use scarce foreign exchange to purchase other goods needed for economic development. Numerous international meetings and reports in recent years have recognized the threat which rising energy import bills pose for economic development and for the success of development assistance programs, including Canada's.
In 1980, the World Bank reported that "the sharp rise in the cost of energy in recent years has underlined the urgent need to expand domestic energy production in developing countries that are dependent on imports."
Ironically, developing countries have known oil and gas resources, or promising possibilities for discovery. Typically, however, the countries involved, like the one referred to by the hon. member, lack both funds and expertise, and the multinational oil companies, which have both, have tended to concentrate their efforts in industrialized or established oil exporting countries. Recognizing this, the Government of Canada has established the Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation to assist developing countries to reduce or eliminate their dependence on imported oil by using Canadian technology and expertise for oil and gas exploration and directly related activities.


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 a.m.
At 10.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Friday, July 30, 1982