1982-01-25

THE LATE BRUCE LONSDALE


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, it is my painful duty to invite all hon. members to join with me today in paying tribute to the memory of a young man whose death on Friday was profoundly shocking to us. Bruce Lonsdale was one of the most able, most dedicated, and most promising of the younger members of the House of Commons.
Most of us knew him only for a few years, since his election as Member of Parliament for Timiskaming in 1980. In that time we came to understand and share the respect and admiration which led the people of the northern Ontario community of Cobalt to entrust him with great responsibility while he was still in his early twenties. It was because he served so well as town councillor and mayor of Cobalt, especially in the aftermath of the devastating fire which destroyed so much of that community in 1977, that the people of the vast riding of Timiskaming chose him to represent them in Parliament. He repaid their trust by becoming one of the hardest working and most effective Members of Parliament we knew.
His last official act, the announcement in Sturgeon Falls on Friday that the government would open a Statistics Canada office in that community, was typical of the quality of his service. He sought constantly to bring the government closer to the people he represented, and to help create for them new opportunities for employment and fulfilment.
[ Translation]
By the strange irony of fate, Bruce Lonsdale was on his way home after carrying out those official duties when he was killed in a highway accident. I am sure that the members of this House will want to join me in wishing a prompt and complete recovery to the other two who were hurt in this accident. To Mrs. Lonsdale, her children and all Bruce Lonsdale's close relatives, we can only express our sorrow and our sympathy. I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to send them our heartfelt condolences. In Bruce Lonsdale we have lost a friend and a dedicated colleague who was dear to us all and who still had so much to offer Canada and the Canadian people. Although we have witnessed only a short period of his full life, he shall live on in our memory.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I want to associate us with the words just spoken by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and to express my personal sadness and that of my colleagues on this side of the House at the untimely death last Friday of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Lonsdale).
Many of my colleagues here had the opportunity during Bruce Lonsdale's short period of service in the House of Commons to work very closely with him and he had won, in an uncommonly short time, respect among members on all sides of the House and all parties in this House. As the Prime Minister has said, he was a member here for a very short period of time, but he proved himself during that time to be an able and effective and most energetic representative of all his constituents. He approached his job as Member of Parliament with that same drive and determination that he had exhibited during the period of his service as mayor of Cobalt when he led the citizens of that community in overcoming a great disaster, and he co-ordinated the reconstitution of the town following the fire to which the Prime Minister has referred.
Bruce Lonsdale will be profoundly missed in this House as a member whose standard of service was a model to us all and one who was a very good and personal friend to many of us. We join with all members of the House of Commons in expressing our sympathy to his wife and family.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the members of the New Democratic Party I would like to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in expressing our deep sympathy to Mr. Lonsdale's wife and children following his tragic death prior to the weekend.
As has been indicated by the Prime Minister, Bruce Lonsdale was a young man, only 32, who had already served the people in his region, first as a mayor and then very diligently here in the House of Commons as a Member of Parliament. It is deeply regretted that any person should lose his or her life in such an accident. It is doubly so for this to happen to one so young who has devoted his energies and talents to the good of his country. It is a sad occasion for us here in the House of Commons. It is a sad event for the people he represented so ably.


Madam Speaker:: Of course it was with great sadness that we heard of the sudden death of one of our colleagues. I will transmit to the family of Mr. Lonsdale the sentiments

January 25, 1982
expressed in the House, and I ask the House to rise and observe a minute of silence in his memory.
[Editor's Note: The House rose and observed a one minute silence.]



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. As we mark the beginning of a new year in Parliament I would like to remind the House that this is also a special day for all Canadians of Chinese descent. Today we celebrate the advent of the Chinese New Year, year 4680, the Year of the Dog. It is said that those born in the coming year will be imbued with the qualities of honesty, loyalty, chivalry, devotion and leadership. As one with close ties with the Chinese-Canadian community I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That this House join all Canadians of Chinese descent in a wish for joy and harmony in the coming year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-George-town (Mr. McDermid):
That this House express its profound regret at the Prime Minister's insensate comments regarding the imposition of martial law in Poland, remarks that have been widely used by the Communist regime to support its position, and that this House indicate to the people of Poland and to its government that Canada supports greater freedom in Poland, not less, that Canada supports the legitimate aspirations expressed by millions of Poles, through Solidarity, for greater democracy and a government responsible to Poles themselves, and that Canada opposes and will oppose in all possible ways the suppression of the Polish people by a government imposed by Moscow.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, Clifford Olson's criminal career spans over more than 20 years. During that time the RCMP have repeatedly arrested him, only to see him released almost immediately, or serve only a short term. In view of this most obvious failure of the justice system, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That the Solicitor General establish a full, open public inquiry into the operation of the justice system so that it will bring full justice to the criminal and security to the public.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas interest rates are 3 per cent or 4 per cent higher this year than they were a year ago-and rising again-whereas Agriculture Canada predicts that 1982 net farm incomes will drop 15 per cent this year to a level below that earned in 1974, despite the fact that farm output has more than doubled since that time, and whereas a sound basis for a healthy agricultural economy exists but assistance is needed to help it reach its full potential, I move, seconded by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish):
That this house calls on the government to introduce legislation to expand the ability of the Farm Credit Corporation to offer low cost credit to farmers, to introduce legislation to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act to offer stabilization based on the real cost of production, and to encourage the establishment of new marketing agencies to provide a defence against low prices.


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


January 25, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, the Peace River country has long been known as a land of golden opportunity with its vast energy and agricultural potential, and whereas the recent 11.7 per cent unemployment rate reflects the shattering of this potential by the government's disastrous economic policies, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That the government immediately withdraw its budget and assume a positive role of co-operation and incentive so that employment opportunities will be reopened for people in all sectors.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Statistics Canada recently revealed figures showing that almost one million Canadians are unemployed. That number is rising each week. When you include what are known as the hidden unemployed, those people who consider their employment situation so bleak that they have simply stopped looking, the number of unemployed could easily total a million and a half, which is an estimated 12 per cent of the Canadian labour force.
In light of the fact that the recently tabled federal budget was totally regressive in nature and contained absolutely nothing, either to prevent the escalating losses of existing jobs or to provide for the immediate creation of new ones, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the November budget of the Minister of Finance, which has been universally condemned by Canadians everywhere, be immediately withdrawn and replaced by a new budget which would realistically address the urgent problems of this nation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, whereas every Liberal MP in this House voted in favour of the November 12 budget which increases unemployment: by driving capital, equipment and expertise out of the country, by reducing capital cost allowances and increasing capital gains taxes, by killing initiative, by continuing high interest rates, etc., etc.,
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That this House demands that the Prime Minister do immediately tender his resignation to the Governor General on the grounds that he and his party have betrayed the people of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In the spirit of the Chinese Year of the Dog, if the government's budget and its monetarist policy were hung on a fire hydrant, it is clear what Canadians, like dogs, would like to do on them. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap):
That the government refrain from its dog-eat-dog and dog's-breakfast approach to interest rates and its rabid and its rather mongrel approach to budgeting, and instead take serious action to stimulate our ailing economy to bring it back to life, and follow Japan and a number of western European countries which have taken action independent from the United States to stimulate their own economies.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DISASTERS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the tragic fire which took place in the small northern Ontario town of Spanish early yesterday morning, which claimed the lives of seven children and two adults and left several other families

January 25, 1982
homeless, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith):
That this House express its sorrow to the community of Spanish, Ontario, for the tragic fire that occurred there yesterday morning, claiming the lives of seven children and two adults, and extend its profound sympathy to the families of those who died.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, since it appears that the government and its bureaucratic masters are again displaying their inability to solve Canada's economic problems and may resort to wage and price controls, I move seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this House urge the government to stop deceiving and misleading the Canadian public and immediately advise this country whether it intends once again to expose Canadians to the hazardous experience of wage and price controls.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise to record a protest on behalf of all Canadians over the lackadaisical, senseless, cavalier manner with which the government is addressing the nation's business. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the government House leader suspend discussion of all other business and give priority to the budget and its fate, for the government must give this item priority and put the economy and individual Canadians first.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas Quebec has lost 60,000 jobs since the end of last summer and the unemployment rate in Quebec has now reached a record high of 12 per cent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the House hold the Federal Government responsible for this economic situation which is demoralizing more and more workers, and that it urge the government to launch an economic recovery program whose priority will be to fight unemployment.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion presented by the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. 1 must say, I am sure, on behalf of all members on this side of the House and most Canadians that I am absolutely shocked at the absence of the Minister of Finance from the House on the first opportunity to question him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister will know that Members of Parliament from all parties over the last five weeks have heard from Canadians in all walks of life-pensioners, farmers, students, all Canadians-about the deep damage which is being done to them individually by the budget. In light of that, and in light of the need for Parliament to put the interests of ordinary Canadians first, may I ask the Prime Minister a very simple question. Will he indicate to the House now that his
January 25, 1982

government intends to withdraw its budget and introduce a new budget?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance 1 want to apologize for his absence. Last August he accepted an invitation to speak to the Canadian Club of Toronto for this day, at a time when no one could foresee that this would be the date of the reconvening of the House.


Mr. Crosbie:: Come on!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear the former minister of finance saying "Come on". He will know that it has been a long-standing practice of ministers of finance to speak yearly to the Canadian Club of Toronto. I hope he discharged his duties in that regard, as our minister is doing today.


Mr. Waddell:: He is afraid to come into the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The minister will be here tomorrow and on other days. I assure the hon. member opposite who talks about fear that I will wait to see what frightening questions he would be prepared to ask the minister, but I assure the hon. member that there are other members of the ministry in the House who would be prepared to deal with the economy.


Charles Joseph Clark: Would you answer the question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition asked if we were going to withdraw the budget. The answer is no, Madam Speaker. The budget measures will be brought before the House for discussion as soon as possible.


TAXATION OF EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I should like to speak for a moment of the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. The Canadian Club meets every week.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Charles Joseph Clark: If the Minister of Finance were someone who could have been found to speak for his responsibilities prior to the House reconvening, he could have arranged to be before the Canadian Club and also in his place to stand the heat of questioning in the House of Commons on a budget which does great damage to Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The government seems determined to go ahead with the budget. The Prime Minister will know that one effect of taxing employee benefits such as Blue Cross will be to bump thousands of Canadians into a new tax bracket without giving them any new income. These new taxes on dental care and on extended medical care will, for example, cause 60,000 Canadian mothers to lose all or part of their child tax credit. Does the Prime Minister call that equity, or is it part of the restraint
Oral Questions
program of the Government of Canada to take away and to cut back on the child tax credit program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that in the usual way the budget measures will be brought before the House. They will be discussed in the Committee of the Whole, and such allegations that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition makes now, if he can substantiate them, 1 am sure will be interesting for the House when those measures are looked at and before they are passed.


Mr. Dick:: You didn't go home for the holidays.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I encourage hon. members opposite to have all their questions ready because the measures will be discussed in the House and voted upon. Of course, the Minister of Finance and the rest of the ministry will be happy to look at any statistics to see if they are founded, such as those alleged by the Leader of the Opposition.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am amazed that the Prime Minister, who has indicated that the government intends to push through with this budget, does not know about the elemental impact it will have on ordinary Canadians across the country. I am sure that if he listened a little to his backbenchers they would tell him about some of the pressure that they have been receiving from their constituents across the country. I tell the Prime Minister that there will be debate in this House of Commons, and indeed there will be votes in this House of Commons, and if the Prime Minister thinks he is going to get this budget through quickly, then he is deeply mistaken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Right on.


FINANCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me turn now to the Minister of National Revenue and ask him a question, if I can get his attention for a moment. The Minister of National Revenue made some sweeping statements about the application of the budget and he has been backing away from them. But the minister must surely have some idea, even if his Prime Minister does not, of the impact that some of these measures will have upon ordinary individual Canadians. Despite the changes which the minister was forced to make last week, he will know the result of the rules regarding certain employee benefits is that millions of Canadians have at least $500 a year added to their taxable income, and many will be bumped up into different tax brackets.
14250

January 25, 1982
Oral Questions
I assume the Minister of National Revenue now knows the details of the impact of these measures that his government has been proposing for two months now. Would the minister agree to table in the House of Commons a precise estimate of how many Canadians will be losing social benefits, such as the child tax credit and veterans pensions, as a result of the artificial increases in income that are one consequence of the application of these new rules regarding employee benefits?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I said before Christmas in the House of Commons that the policy of the department was not to go after the nickels or dimes, or the small amounts which are administratively not feasible and are unfair, but to go after those measures that were substantial.
I issued a release on Friday which lays out the approach of my department to the taxation of benefits that are not contained specifically in the Income Tax Act. I think the release shows that it is indeed the policy not to go after the nickels and dimes and the small amounts, but to treat individual Canadians fairly.
With regard to the provision of information, as the Prime Minister has said, that obviously will come out in the course of debate as measures are introduced into the House of Commons.


EFFECT ON MOTHERS AND VETERANS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this House is now back in session. We want some information. We want to know how many Canadian mothers will be denied their child tax credit as a result of this proposal, and how many Canadian veterans will have their eligibility for veterans pensions affected. The minister must know these particular facts. Will he tell the House of Commons now, in respect to those two particular groups of Canadians, mothers affected by the child tax credit, and our Canadian veterans, how many thousands of them will be affected adversely by this Liberal budget proposal?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, I do not have the specific figures to answer the specific questions that the right hon. gentleman has posed, but those figures are readily available. However, I can tell the hon. member that in my own province there are at least
250,000	people whose incomes will be improved as a result of this budget. Most of the people in my province and in my constituency will benefit from this budget, rather than the other way around.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT PLANS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, many Canadians told our Progressive Conservative budget
committee that the budget will result in more lay-offs and higher interest rates as this year goes ahead. We heard from manufacturers who said there would be 100,000 fewer manufacturing jobs. We heard of small-business men, farmers and fishermen who left they were going to lose their businesses because interest rates were going higher. We heard of young couples-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have been rather lenient with the first questioner, but I think the hon. member should get to his question right away. Otherwise I will have to recognize the other section of the House.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I felt that it would be helpful for the Prime Minister to learn more about what is going on in the country.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since Canadians are so frightened and so angry at what is going on as a result of the budget of this government, will the government, and the Prime Minister on behalf of the government, tell these Canadians what the government is preparing to do to avoid these lay-offs, to avoid these high interest rates, and to avoid these dreams being shattered during the course of this year? The budget does not answer those questions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will understand that one of the first objectives of the budget is to keep inflation under control. That is a necessary pre-condition to the creation of jobs and to the lowering of interest rates.
The hon. member was in the process of telling us the many things he heard. The hon. member knows the macroeconomic policy of the government. The hon. member seems to belong to a party which does not know its own macroeconomic policy. We are not sure, because one questioner suggests greater expenditures while the other suggests restraint. This government believes that the main objective of the budget must be to keep inflation under control. That is why we are exercising restraint in the economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, what we heard in this committee were not the broad, macro problems; we heard what was happening to individual Canadians. I would suggest that the Prime Minister listen to their problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This budget has destroyed the faith that Canadians had in their country. It has destroyed the faith that they had in the competence of the people who are proposing to lead this country. Therefore, I would like to ask the Prime Minister what is more important to him, the interests of all Canadians, those of the Liberal Party of Canada, or those of
January 25, 1982

his Minister of Finance? Would he, himself, answer that question for all Canadians by asking for the resignation of his Minister of Finance, and get on with the question of economic renewal with a new minister of finance?


John Carnell Crosbie: Right on!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is not a suggestion I can take very seriously because the hon. member-


John Carnell Crosbie: You should!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -like this government, is more interested in the welfare of all Canadians. The welfare of all Canadians, in spite of the hon. member's statement in preface to his question, is a macroeconomic question. We must ensure that the economy is sound if we want the individual areas of the economy to profit from that over-all economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. We are now in the midst of the deepest depression since the war, having lost
235.000	jobs since August, with lay-offs in the province of Ontario alone, during last month, occurring at the rate of
3.000	per working day.
In his speech today to the Canadian Club in Toronto the Minister of Finance said, "This situation is going to get even worse." In the same speech he said that the government plans to wait for our trading partners, essentially, to bail us out.
My question to the Prime Minister is to ask simply why he thinks Canadians will wait for others to bail us out. In particular, why does he expect that more than one million unemployed Canadians will sit back while this government does nothing about their plight?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
*


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot accept the interpretation of the speech given by the minister today in Toronto to mean that we will wait for our partners to bail us out. I would like to know why the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party invents such interpretations.
There is a budget before the House. It presents a macroeconomic approach. It will be discussed in the House, but it serves nothing to invent interpretations of the statement of the Minister of Finance. He has made his position concerning the
Oral Questions
budget quite clear in the House. He will be back to continue to defend his budget.
There is nothing contained in his policy which suggests that we will wait for others to bail us out. His policy, rather than to say that things will get worse, is to ensure that the Canadian economy is well managed, and is based on the assumption that the depression which is hitting many of the industrialized societies will come to an ebb, will bottom-out by the summer and that we will all be embarking on recovery together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT INDEPENDENTLY OF UNITED STATES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, finance ministers representing France, West Germany, Great Britain, Japan, and some other European countries met last week and reached a decision which was completely contrary to that of the Government of Canada on two important points; specifically, that they would take action, first, to reduce interest rates as a matter of government policy in their countries, and, second, to take action independently of the United States to stimulate their economies. Why can the Government of Canada not do the same thing here for Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the economic circumstances of different countries are the responsibilities of the governments of those countries. In the case of Canada-


John Edward Broadbent: And they are exercising it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the case of Canada, the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is suggesting stimulus. I would put to him the simple fact that the Canadian budget is now in a deficit position of over S10 billion. Does the hon. member not consider this to be a form of stimulus?


POLICIES FOLLOWED BY OTHER COUNTRIES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister knows, or should know, that the percentage of GNP going to government spending in most of the countries I have just listed is higher than that of the Government of Canada, and they are taking independent action.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, if the governments in western Europe and in Japan recognize that the United States is pursuing a disastrous economic policy in world terms, why is it that they have the political courage to take independent action for their people which this government simply does not possess?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must repeat that the budgetary situations of differ-

January 25, 1982
Oral Questions
ent countries vary from country to country. In the case of France, for instance, its over-all budget deficit and, hence, its policy of stimulating the economy, was considerably less than that of Canada. Therefore, it is natural that they take a more stimulative position now because it is catching up to what Canada has been doing for some years.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY OF AMBASSADOR WILLIAM BROCK, SPECIAL U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 should like to draw the attention of members of the House to the presence in our gallery of Ambassador William Brock, the United States Special Trade Representative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question to the Solicitor General concerns one of several serious contradictions respecting government policy with regard to the purpose of the RCMP payment to the convicted killer, Olson. The Prime Minister has stated that a conviction was obtained because the payment was made, while the Solicitor General has been very definite in saying that the RCMP had a sustainable case and that the payment was not to obtain a conviction but, rather to give peace of mind to the victims' parents. Which one of these contradictory statements is the truth, and which one indicates the federal government's purpose in not stopping this terribly wrong payment?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that there was no trial in this matter, but that there was a plea of guilty which ended it. Therefore, we will never know-


Mr. Nielsen:: That's a trial.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: - what the weight of the evidence would have been at any point or what particular aspect of evidence would have borne more weight than other evidence in the opinion the judge who would have heard the case.
What is important to remember is that on August 25, when the deal was struck under the full direction and responsibility of the attorney general of the province, the serious charge of murder had already been laid against Mr. Olson, and that when the RCMP lay a charge of murder against an individual they do so because they have substantial evidence against him.
There is absolutely no doubt that the evidence which was obtained as a result of this agreement was evidence which reinforced the charge against him, and would have borne heavily in the consideration of the court against him. However, the fact is that a very important and significant step was taken when the charge was laid by the RCMP, and it was done with very substantial evidence available to sustain a conviction.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF PAYMENT AGREEMENT
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General is not only contradicting his Prime Minister, he is contradicting Staff Superintendent Lyman Henschel as well. There was a trial which is now over. A conviction has been registered. Federal public funds were used in the payment. The Canada-B.C. Policing Agreement states in part, this is quite short, and I quote:
The internal management of provincial police services and the administration and application of proper police procedures are under the control of Canada.
Because the approval of the payment was required here in Ottawa, will the Solicitor General summarize the important parts of the agreement between the RCMP and Olson, and immediately table that agreement?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to table the agreement. The hon. member quoted a part of the agreement, but failed to quote the part of the agreement which repeats the provisions of the BN A Act, namely, that the administration of justice in the province is and continues to be the responsibility of the attorney general in the province, that the RCMP provincial contingent serves him in the administration of justice in the province, and that the attorney general of British Columbia has indicated quite forthrightly that this decision was made under his responsibility and with his approval. As I have indicated, I was not informed and no federal minister was informed before this agreement was consummated.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in his statement about the imposition of martial law in Poland has never condemned that imposition, nor has he recognized any Soviet responsibility for that intervention. The Polish paper Trybuna Ludu, and the U.S.S.R. and Polish media have quoted the Prime Minister for his approval of the repressive actions of the Polish government.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday that the Soviet Union was involved in the military clampdown and has intervened in Polish affairs? If he agrees with him, what changes will now be made in our policy, which to date has
January 25, 1982

supported the Polish and Russian actions in Poland against the Polish people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that I disagree with his interpretation of our policy, particularly the facts that he set forward. When he says that there was never any condemnation of martial law in Poland, I must point out to him that the very first time I was asked about the imposition of martial law, I believe it was at a press conference on December 19, I regretted the imposition of martial law. 1 went on to indicate that, since it was a fact, we would hope that the military authorities in Poland would permit monitoring by Canada or other people to ensure that the rigours of martial law would be eased as soon as possible. My statement at the year-end went even further along that line.
As to the role of the Soviet Union, I must say that at the time I spoke we had no evidence of any direct intervention by the Soviet Union in Polish affairs. When I say direct, I mean of course beyond the fact that Poland is and has been a satellite of the Soviet Union, as are many other countries in eastern Europe. However, in so far as any direct military intervention is concerned, we had no evidence of that. I understand that some countries claimed to have such evidence. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is in the process of examining and assessing that evidence.


COMMENTS MADE BY PRIME MINISTER
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has been the reluctant debutante in condemning what happened in Poland and what has gone on there for the last month. On December 18 the Prime Minister stated that martial law was the best alternative in Poland, and I quote:
Hopefully the military regime will be able to keep Solidarity from excessive demands.
Since the Prime Minister has agreed to appear on a television show arranged by the U.S. International Communications Agency, to be shown around the world on January 30 in support of the Polish people, will he now repudiate and withdraw his comments supporting martial law in Poland and apologize for them, to counteract the view of the Poles that, and I quote:
Your Trudeau-he really did us in.
Or will he go ahead without repentance as 1982's greatest example of hypocrisy in action?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question is more laden with invective than with fact. When he says that I support martial law, I must ask him to refer to the text of my statement.


Mr. Andre:: December 18.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, it was on December 18. It was stated in these terms: if martial law is a way to avoid civil war and
Oral Questions
Soviet intervention, then I cannot say it is all bad. That, I suppose, is still a question for the history books to decide. In the case of this government, and I believe most of our allies, we have always expressed the hope and stated the policy to the effect that the Soviet Union must not intervene militarily in Polish affairs and that the solution to the Polish crisis should be found by the Poles themselves. My statements will stand.
I do not believe that in advance we can or should condemn the use of troops by any of our friends, if it is to avoid a worse result. The worse result in this case would have been intervention by the Soviet Union. When I say by our friends, of course everybody in this House has examples in mind where democratic or other forms of government have used the military. Britain is using them in Northern Ireland now. Turkey is using them. They are our friends in NATO. We have used them under the War Measures Act in 1970. These cases are all different in scope, but once again we must ask ourselves if there was a better scenario. Perhaps there was. I do not know. However, I say that if the invocation of martial law was a way to keep the Soviet troops out, then I cannot condemn it a priori. I will have to see in what way that martial law proceeds, and I will-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If hon. members opposite want to engage in debate, we will be happy to have a debate on one of their opposition days, if that is what they want. However, I think the position of the government warrants listening to by members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It pertains to the fact that last year the delivery of unemployment insurance in the province of British Columbia collapsed three times, with the result that thousands of workers were forced to turn to the provincial welfare system when they should have been qualified for unemployment insurance. It is taking the minister's department something in the order of two to three months to provide unemployment insurance to those people who are suffering enormous hardship.
What I would like to hear from the minister is if he can tell us today exactly what provisions he intends to make to rectify this situation so as to clear up the problem now, and can he guarantee it will not happen for a fourth time within the next few months? Also can he tell us whether he intends to reimburse the province of British Columbia for the millions of dollars that it is paying out for unemployment insurance funding because of the incompetence of his department?

January 25, 1982
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would apologize to the hon. member for any inconvenience his constituents might have faced but, as the hon. member knows, there is a fair degree of demand upon some of our unemployment insurance offices these days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is your fault.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, that is what the system is for. When the hon. members opposite ask what we are doing, the fact of the matter is that this government is supporting perhaps the most extensive and broadscale unemployment insurance program to provide support for workers in times of need.
The system is working the way it is supposed to work by providing support for people. What we are doing in British Columbia, as the hon. member knows, is trying to shift and allocate our resources where the demand is greatest. I could provide for the hon. member's interest a letter I received from one of his British Columbia colleagues thanking us for the special efforts we have made in his area.
If he has particular problems, I would be glad to deal with them personally and directly to see what particular assistance we might provide in that constituency.


Raymond John Skelly: The minister does not appreciate the serious and explosive nature of this problem. When people start talking about trying to take the problem in hand with a 30-30 in those offices, then it is serious. If you ask any member of this caucus about the kinds of problems their people in their constituencies are suffering, it is not individual.


REQUEST THAT PROPOSED CHANGES TO SYSTEM BE WITHDRAWN
Raymond John Skelly: The minister proposes a new repressive system of unemployment insurance that would see more people thrown off the rolls. Would the minister give us his assurance that he will not bring forward the proposed changes in the unemployment insurance system that would see more people thrown off our first line of defence and more people thrown into provincial welfare? Would he assure this House that he is not going to bring forward those repressive measures?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, to begin with I would like to say to the hon. member that he does not help the case of either his constituents or anyone across the country by engaging in the sort of irresponsible statements which he has just made in the previous question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I would simply say to him that the interest of the members of this House is to look at the entire unemployment insurance program, to improve that program and to provide a broader, more liberal and reform position, and that we are interested in reforming the Unemployment Insurance Act and will do so after we finish consultation with all those who have asked us to provide for better improvements in the present program.


HOUSING
Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It deals with the housing technology incentive program. Would the minister tell the House how many Canadian companies have benefited from grants under this program, how much money was allocated to it-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: -and, most important, what he is doing to ensure that these innovations are being made known to the public and to the industry?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to report that the provisions of the budget which will give some increase in the budget for housing, particularly in the area of improving housing conditions, will continue the program of last year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: There is a budget commitment of this government of $375,000 to individual programs of housing technology incentives. Last year the program served 44 different applications of approximately $10,000. It serves the disabled, and three quarters of the program applications were in connection with energy improvement technology incentives in the area of housing.

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Recently, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association called to the attention of the government, and thus the minister, that 200,000 jobs had been lost in the manufacturing sector, and now the association expects that a further 100,000 jobs will be lost within the next two months. In the circum-
January 25, 1982

stances, I should like first to ask the minister-I realize that he has a list of the plants that have already closed-whether he has looked into the situation of the plants that are expected to shut down, with the attendant loss of another 100,000 jobs, and if so, does the minister have a contingency plan to prevent the loss of 100,000 jobs, a loss Canada cannot afford at the present time?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, we feel that the present unemployment rate is a very serious matter, and that is why, before Christmas, the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced a new program that would provide greater support for direct job creation, and that is why, this morning, I announced a new program with a budget of $93 million, to further stimulate production and job-creation by applying new electronic production systems. 1 believe this will result in the creation of many new jobs, while at the same time, Madam Speaker, the new Department of Industrial Regional Expansion will also be producing new job-creation programs. We consider the present situation to be a serious one, and we are working hard to provide the necessary solutions.


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker.
Obviously, the minister's reply has little to offer in the way of hope for Canadians. The minister has mentioned medium-and long-term programs. Of course, we cannot judge the value of those programs today, but the minister knows perfectly well that 100,000 jobs are going to be lost within the next two months, and he has offered no solution to that problem. The Minister of Finance, who is in Toronto today, has confirmed that things are going to get worse.
Does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce consider that the situation is serious enough for him to come up with an emergency plan or a special strategy to prevent the closing of these plants, especially since he is well aware, as we all are on both sides of the House, that we cannot afford to lose
100,000	jobs at this time?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are going to work very hard in order to prevent the closing of plants across Canada, and in creating new departments we intend to set up programs to respond to the present situation and future developments, as part of our policy to pave the way for industrial and economic renewal by reducing inflation and unemployment. Therefore, I feel that we are working very seriously on providing solutions to problems that are well known to all of us.
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice who has left his seat before question period is finished, and in the absence of the Minister of Finance who is not here at all, I would direct my question to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Here he is.


Pat Carney: If the Minister of Justice would return to his seat I can finish my question. In December the Minister of Justice told Mr. Jack Munro, president of the International Woodworkers' of America, that the government is determined to tax room, board and transportation allowances for workers at remote work sites. The British Columbia Federation of Labour calculates that the extra taxes paid by loggers could be as high as $18 per day. I want to ask the minister why his government is determined to impose this punitive tax on an industry where one out of every five workers is either unemployed or laid off?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: I do not know what the hon. member is referring to, Madam Speaker. I think she is referring to the budget, and the Minister of Finance will be in the House tomorrow to reply. I do not know what Mr. Munro said, but I would like to see what he said. He has not mentioned such a thing to me. He referred to the past practices when I was minister of finance, but we did not discuss what was in the budget.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I would like the record to show that the Minister of Justice spoke to the president of the IWA on December 21 or 22, which he has now denied.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am sorry; I did not-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


EFFECT OF BUDGET ON COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS
Pat Carney: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Labour. A number of unions and labour organizations have told our Conservative committee on the budget that many collective agreements contain a clause that allows negotiations to be reopened in the event that tax changes affect the terms of the contract. Considering the potential labour unrest that will be created by the proposed taxes on a range of social benefits, including dental plans and extended health benefits, is the government prepared to withdraw these unfair measures to avoid the prospect of labour unrest?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, collective agreements have been respected by labour and

January 25, 1982
Oral Questions
management in the past, and I hope this fine tradition will be respected in relation to this and other measures in the future. Of course, if in an agreement there are clauses which would permit the reconsideration of certain aspects of the agreement, that would be part of that particular agreement, but by and large the Canadian labour scene has a fine tradition of respecting collective agreements from the beginning to the end.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and it concerns the payment of $90,000 in blood money to convicted child murderer Clifford Olson. Since the announcement of this unprecedented and reprehensible payment, the Solicitor General has come up with a series of blatantly contradictory statements. One day he said he knew of the payment two days after it was authorized. Later we found out that in fact it was more than two weeks after the payment was authorized. One day he said that the police had a convictable case. Later we learned that in fact they may not have had a convictable case. One day he said there was no federal money. Later-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask a question, please.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my question is this: in view of this series of contradictions, and in view of other important questions about the nature of this investigation, is the Solicitor General prepared to order a full public independent inquiry, so that all Canadians can decide for themselves on the wisdom, or lack thereof, of this very serious and unprecedented payment?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, on the question of contradictions I think the hon. member should know better than to believe every single thing he reads.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Especially your statements.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There were some conflicting statements in the media, and I think all of them have been resolved, or can easily be resolved by some further discussion and further reporting about them.
On the question of conducting an inquiry, this was a matter which was conducted under the provincial policing contract. I have been in touch with the attorney general of the province, to whom the B.C. contingent of the RCMP reports under the provincial policing contract, to ask him if he is satisfied with the way in which the police conducted themselves in that matter. I have been assured that he is. I expect to hear from the Commissioner of the RCMP in the same vein within the next few days, because I have asked him as well to satisfy himself that the policing was properly done in the matter.
If an inquiry is to be conducted into a provincial policing aspect, I do not think the Parliament of Canada should usurp the authority to conduct such an inquiry. It is true that the RCMP is a federal agency, but it is a national police force, and if the Parliament of Canada cannot accept the role it plays in the provinces and cannot allow it to play that role properly so far as the administration of justice is concerned under the attorney general concerned, then we are going to lose the opportunity to use this very important national institution in that way.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General should know very well that not 75 per cent but every penny of the $100,000 paid to Clifford Olson came out of federal coffers, and that alone warrants a federal public independent inquiry.


SUGGESTED RECOVERY OF FUNDS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that this payment could establish a very dangerous legal precedent in Canada, and in view of the fact that it is the understanding of federal and provincial authorities that never before has such a payment been made, will the Solicitor General at least give this House the assurance that never again will a payment of such blood money be made under such circumstances and that he will attempt to recover all funds which have been paid so far?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, in so far as the consideration of where the money came from is concerned, it is true that the federal government is the paymaster of the RCMP, and whether it is for long distance telephone calls, lunches, or gasoline, under the provincial contract the money comes initially from federal coffers. However, I have just negotiated a contract-and I thought the hon. member knew the details of that contract-under which every quarter the federal government claims repayment from the provinces for these outlays on the basis of the federal-provincial cost-sharing agreement, which will change every year over the next ten years in the direction of the federal government contributing a smaller and smaller proportion of that total. I do not think anything turns on the fact that the initial payments are federal, and I think this is simply a red herring being put forward by the hon. member.
In so far as an assurance that such an agreement will never be made again is concerned, I am prepared to assure-as was the case in this case-where an unprecedented type of arrangement is contemplated and demanded by a criminal, that that decision will be raised to the highest level in the province by the RCMP-as was done in this case-that legal advice will be obtained about it, that those politically responsible for the decision will be consulted-as was the case in this case-and that if the decision reached is lawful and if it is consistent with the professional code of the RCMP, it will be their responsibility to make it.
January 25, 1982


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the fact that the presidents of the Canadian Polish Congress, the Polish Alliance of Canada, the Polish National Union of Canada, and the Polish Combatants Association are in the gallery, and in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has received new and additional information from his counterpart in the United States, Mr. Haig, and from other sources, is he prepared to recommend to the cabinet that his government ask the Polish government to withdraw martial law in Poland as soon as possible and to re-enter negotiations with the church and Solidarity as soon as possible?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to repeat again our urging, our request, and even our demand to the Polish government that it withdraw the martial law which now pertains in that country, free prisoners, and return to political dialogue.
I might say, for the information of the House, that the statement which General Jaruzelski delivered earlier today in that respect is rather disappointing. It forecast a date for the removal of some elements of martial law but far from met what we would hope would be the case in that great country.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and it relates to the payment of $100,000 to the family of Clifford Olson. The Prime Minister said in a CBC interview broadcast on January 23 that he saw nothing illegal or immoral in police paying accused for information. In light of the fact that the RCMP is a federal responsibility, would the Prime Minister please advise the House how decisions will be made in the future as to whether accused persons will be paid for their evidence? Are guidelines being prepared for the RCMP and, if so, what are those guidelines?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in his answer to the last question the Solicitor General indicated what those guidelines are and what they will be in the future. I hope the hon. member will take the trouble to read Hansard rather than repeat questions.
Oral Questions


RESPONSIBILITY FOR POLICE FORCE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General did not in fact answer the question. He simply tried to remove himself from responsibility and put it onto the attorney general of a province. The fact is this is a federal police force. I want to know whether the Prime Minister considers that if when ten young people go missing that is an appropriate time for the RCMP to be paying money out. Should it be five young persons or one young person, or if there is an undue amount of time spent on an investigation and there is a public clamour for payment? Are any of those circumstances going to be used as circumstances under which money should be paid by the federal police force? When will we have some guidelines, and when will the Prime Minister stand and take responsibility for the federal police force?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General not only dealt with the guidelines and spelled them out quite specifically but he also anticipated the last part of the question relating to our responsibility for the federal police force. When it is acting under the jurisdiction of a province in its task to administer justice and apply the Criminal Code as stated in our Criminal Code, the police are under the authority of that province, and if they have done nothing illegal, as seems to be the case in this particular instance, the question remains whether it is good policy or not, and whether it is moral, and in these matters I think it is wise to let the police make the judgment in the particular cases, provided the over-all guidelines are laid out, as the Solicitor General has just done.


Madam Speaker:: I will allow one question from the hon. member for Edmonton North.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, I have one supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External affairs has just mentioned that he was not happy with what General Jaruzelski said in his speech today, would he please tell this House what he plans to do about it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we are giving full consideration to the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: I would remind the House that Canada has supplied more food to Poland per capita than any other country, has made more loans to Poland than any other

January 25, 1982
Business of the House
country, and has accepted more Polish refugees per capita than any other country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: It seems to me that this is the best indication of the seriousness with which the Canadian people and the Canadian government regard this issue. We do not regard it as an issue with which to play politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the one hundred and sixty-ninth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) on Friday, December 18, 1981, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Madam Speaker:: I have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Mr. Deans:: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before coming to my question of privilege I had intended to ask a question or two of the government House leader, but perhaps I will deal with the question of privilege first if that is your desire.


Madam Speaker:: I think it might be helpful if the hon. member dealt with his question concerning the business of the House first.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could put some questions to the government House leader with regard to House business, this being the first day of our return.
From the time we rose prior to Christmas until today, a number of changes have been made to the budget proposals that were put before us. Is the government House leader able to tell us whether the legislation which the government intended to place before the House prior to Christmas that deals directly with the budgetary measures put before the House by the Minister of Finance will go forward? Will the measures be consistent with the budget as it was first introduced, or will they take into account a number of changes that have been indicated both by the Minister of Finance and by the Minister of National Revenue over the course of the last two or three weeks?
Specifically, can the government House leader indicate whether legislation is to come before the House that will deal
with interest rates on mortgages for home owners and mortgages for farmers? The Minister of Agriculture suggested one week ago that this might be forthcoming.
Can the government House leader also indicate whether a new economic statement will be issued which will show the current thinking of the Minister of Finance before we deal with the legislative proposals of the government?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, there is no change in the business plans that were in front of the House when we adjourned before Christmas. Today we will be dealing with the Canagrex bill and tomorrow is an allotted day. Today we will give notice of a couple of bills that are a direct result of the budget and which deal with farm credit and with housing. Those bills should be ready for introduction later this week or, at the latest, at the beginning of next week. It is the intention of the government to deal with bills and matters related to the economy in the weeks and months to come.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have a further question. I am sure the government House leader listened carefully to statements made by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue during the Christmas and New Year break. Both those hon. ministers indicated there would be changes to the proposals that had been placed before the House of Commons in the budget statement of the Minister of Finance.
When will the House of Commons be given the benefit of direct knowledge of the changes that those two ministers intend to bring forward, and when will the House of Commons receive the proposals that the Minister of Agriculture suggested were forthcoming with regard to aid for farmers in the near future?


Yvon Pinard: the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue so far.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, as a matter of practice for many years, the customary House business question has been asked on a Thursday. Since the government House leader indicated before we rose on December 18 that we would be dealing with the Canagrex legislation today and would have an allotted day tomorrow, and since Wednesday normally arises before Thursday-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are learning!


Erik Nielsen: -I wonder if I could make the assumption, although making any assumption with this government is always dangerous, that should Canagrex not go through today, we will deal with it again on Wednesday?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I listened to some comments made by my hon. colleague and some of his colleagues during the Christmas break. I welcome him back to reality; in fact, Wednesday is before Thursday!
On Wednesday we will deal again with Canagrex if we do not complete it tonight, but 1 hope we will get Canagrex to committee tonight. On Wednesday we might go on with Bill C-10 which we started to debate just prior to Christmas.


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. Solicitor General rising on government business?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, on a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Could I ask the minister to remain seated until we Finish with government business, please.
Is the hon. member for Brant rising on government business?


Mr. Blackburn:: Yes, Madam Speaker. I should like to put a couple of questions to the government House leader with respect to government business. I can find nothing on the Order Paper that specifically addresses the massive problem of widespread unemployment, particularly in the manufacturing sector in Ontario and Quebec. There was nothing in the budget to indicate that the government seriously intends to cope with the 235,000 people who have been laid off in manufacturing and the projected or forecasted 100,000 more who are going to be laid off in the next month.
In view of the fact that 50 per cent of those workers who have been laid off have lost their jobs permanently, I should like to ask the government House leader when we can expect the government to bring in legislation that will directly and effectively deal with this most serious problem in Canada, the problem of massive unemployment. I ask the government House leader to tell this House or to show me on the Order Paper where there is one piece of legislation proposed by the government to help solve the problem of unemployment here and now, this winter. That is my question.
Business of the House


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker will recall that a few weeks before the Christmas recess I intervened on a question similar to the one which has just been raised to say that it is not in keeping with the practice of the House for individual members, represented as they are by House leaders, to raise consecutively, member after member, for purely political yardage reasons, questions such as the one which the Chair has just heard.
I have asked the co-operation of hon. members in this party to allow me the freedom to deal with questions of House business, and they have given me that co-operation 100 per cent. Madam Speaker will not find individual members of this party smuggling in political questions such as the one just referred to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -under the guise of a question of House business.
If the Chair allows this kind of practice, I can give no guarantee that my own members will not follow suit. If the Chair recognizes that kind of political question smuggled into routine questions on House business, which should not be arising before Thursday in any event, I can give no guarantee that my own members will not follow suit and will be perfectly justified in doing so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I remind the hon. member that all members are, of course, allowed to ask questions on government business, but through an arrangement which I think is very wise that responsibility is delegated to the leaders of the parties in the House. I do not think there has been abuse by individual members coming forward and asking questions about government business; usually that has been left to House leaders. I remind hon. members that it is a very good practice, one which should be encouraged, to leave these matters to be questioned by House leaders.
However, if an hon. member wants to be recognized to ask a question about government business, I have to allow him his question. But I ask the co-operation of hon. members not to debate when they are asking such questions; then I think the hon. member for Yukon would be justified in saying that this is smuggling in questions on government business for political reasons. I do not think we have had too much trouble with that particular aspect of our business in the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have a question on government House business regarding small business. Prior to our rising on December 18, it was mentioned a number of times by ministers opposite that indeed legislation would be brought in when we returned on January 25 which would provide encouragement for small business to expand. What we have seen prior to that, what we have seen after five weeks of opportunity to draft legislation, and the fact that we now understand that in

Business of the House
excess of 8,000 small businesses have experienced bankruptcy-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question to ask about a piece of legislation, he should do so in a straightforward manner and not elaborate on it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I apologize for going on at some length. My question to the government House leader would be: can we expect shortly some indication of legislation which will encourage small businesses in Canada to expand their operations and provide jobs, as opposed to the present situation where there seems to be an accent on unemployment in terms of government legislation?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, our fight against inflation should produce results.


Mrs. Mitchell:: Madam Speaker, I should also like to ask the House leader a question concerning legislation relating to Canada's very extreme housing problems. We are aware that there are draft amendments to the National Housing Act, but they are restricted to minor changes relating to what we consider to be very inadequate coverage in the budget for deferred mortgage interest rates, etc. The party to my right is aware from its hearings that there has been a major slump in the construction industry over the last three years-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: -not to mention people with inadequate housing and very serious housing problems. Will legislation be introduced to deal with mortgage interest rates per se, preferably through the Bank Act, to reduce mortgage interest rates and to outline a long-term mortgage interest rates policy which, in our opinion, is the only way of solving the problem? Canadians have the right to know whether this kind of legislation will come before the House.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, this time I must say that I agree with the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. A few minutes ago he very aptly pointed out that abuse of this type of question could very easily occur, after the oral question period, if members ask questions ostensibly to inquire about the order of business in the House during the coming days or weeks, and in fact turn them into an opportunity for making political mileage, without the government having a chance to defend itself. I have no secrets about the order of business in the House. The House leaders of the parties meet regularly, and I inform them about the order of business in the House. Questions like those we heard just now may be justified, and basically they are, but they are not appropriate when members put them in this way and at this time of the day, especially when the time of the House is precious.
Now that the economy is going through a very difficult period, and we recognize this, I feel that it is even more important that members on both sides of the House should act responsibly and attend to the business at hand, so that the government can have a debate on the measures it is proposing with a view to fighting inflation and improving social and economic conditions in this country.
In the circumstances, Madam Speaker, I have no intention of letting the time of the House of Commons be wasted in this way. Like the other ministers during question period, I am under no obligation to answer all questions put to me in my capacity of minister.
I shall observe the common courtesy of providing my colleagues with the information they need to plan for the debates in the House. I intend to continue to provide regular information to my fellow House leaders with whom I am on excellent terms. However, should the Progressive Conservative Party decide tomorrow that it is going to follow this example and members from all parts of the country, at least ten, are deployed to ask questions about the business of the House in order to get political points across, I do not think we will ever get around to consideration of individual bills until four o'clock or 4.30 in the afternoon, and I do think Canadians expect more of us than that. The Canadian people are not interested in organized obstruction by the opposition parties and they expect a minimum of co-operation so that we can get on with our work. In the circumstances, I do not intend to provide a specific answer to this question and I would refer the hon. member to his House leader, with whom I shall be glad to discuss the matter.


Madam Speaker:: In view of the remarks I have just made, I think I can go as far as to give an example of the manner in which this particular question could have been asked. It could have simply been: Can we expect some legislation concerning the reduction of mortgage interest rates? It could be as simple as that. This is the kind of question which is admissible at this time under government business. I should like hon. members to restrain themselves and to ask questions in a precise and concise manner, so that we do not enter into debate at this particular time. I think we would all benefit if the House disciplines itself and follows the rules, and especially the customs, because we are dealing with customs here.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, it will be readily apparent that hon. members in this party have put their questions with respect to House business, not themselves but through me. If the system-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Rae:: Get off your knees.


Mr. Shields:: You are the guys who put the Liberals in power.
January 25, 1982


Madam Speaker:: Order, order!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, if the system is to work at all-


Bob Rae: You shut it down for weeks.


Erik Nielsen: I would urge those yappy people in the socialist party to yap through their Elouse leader instead of interrupting me as they are doing now.
If the Chair permits this practice, the system will break down. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that it is the simplest thing in the world-


An hon. Member:: Thank you, Erik.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps they could stop howling. Everyone can speak except them; that is their idea of free speech in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: If they would stop yapping so that you could hear me, Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yukon has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: I would like to suggest to you that the Chair recognize the House leaders of the three parties for the purpose of dealing with House business, except in very rare circumstances.
It is very simple for us to do what has been done by the little red rump-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -and organize a series of questions just like the series we have been treated to now. Indeed, if the Chair allows this procedure, and I do not say this in any way at all threateningly, Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -but if this practice is going to be allowed those on my left, I can assure you that we will do it also. I will not keep my members down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: 1 will invite them to participate freely in asking those questions which concern them as individuals as well. I suggest to the Chair that we adopt a policy of working these questions through the House leaders except in very rare circumstances; otherwise there will be chaos.
Business of the House


Madam Speaker:: The suggestion that the House leaders discuss this matter I think is a very good one. I just want to remind hon. members that I cannot keep members sitting down; when they rise to ask for the floor, I must give them the floor. Members are allowed to ask questions on government business. Members should be concise and their questions should be to the point. They should not make speeches. I will see to it that speeches do not evolve from their questions. However, I do ask hon. members to co-operate with their House leaders. That is indeed the best way to run the affairs of the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This would not have happened had Stanley Knowles been here.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have a quick question.


Jack Wendele Shields: Ask it then.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Many of us spent the holidays-


An hon. Member:: Ask the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If hon. members will let me ask the question,
I will ask the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Many of us spent the holidays in our riding offices. People came in day in and day out to complain about the government's economic policy.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We do not need a preamble. If the hon. member has a question about government business, he can go right to the question. For example, he can say: "Does the government intend to introduce legislation about . . . ," and so on.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, does the government intend to introduce legislation that would alleviate the problems of the older people in the country, specifically by increasing the old age pension this term so that they will not continue to suffer? They have been telling us day in and day out that they have been suffering, with current interest rates and the general state of inflation in the economy.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, this government is eager to proceed with a major bill, namely Bill C-85. It deals with the promotion of agricultural food and products from Canada. We are ready to work. Because of the attitude of the NDP, we cannot do so. It is a shame.


Mr. Korchinski:: Madam Speaker, because there was a realignment of responsibility in DREE, we do not know to whom we should direct our questions. Can the government House leader tell us whether there will be legislation which will authorize someone to speak on behalf of DREE? Do we ask the former minister or the Minister of Regional Economic

January 25, 1982
Business of the House
Expansion, or whatever he is called today? To whom do we ask questions relating to this particular department?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we will introduce legislation some time later. In the meantime, I will keep the hon. member for Yukon aware of the question.


Erik Nielsen: That is what you think.


Yvon Pinard: And the hon. member for Yukon will be in the position to give the right answers to the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: For the first time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Could I ask that only members who want to discuss government business rise before I go to questions of privilege?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I think you have already been presented by the Clerk of the House with a copy of Beauchesne. Page 25, Section 81(1), indicates that in all cases questions of privilege must take priority. I view this as very important. Questions of privilege take priority over government business, in fact over everything, especially when a matter arises as a result of what occurred in question period.
Two members at least have been attempting to rise on a question of privilege on matters arising from question period, namely, the Solicitor General and myself. The Solicitor General gave me notice first that he intended to raise a certain matter and I have been attempting to defer my question of privilege to his, which I suspect is along the same lines. May I mercifully point out to you, in the most polite and submissive way that I can, that Section 81(1) states that a question of privilege takes priority over everything.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is quite right. A question of privilege is defined precisely by the fact that it has to be dealt with in an urgent manner. There is an arrangement in this House whereby government business on Thursday is dealt with immediately after question period. That is an arrangement between the House leaders which I follow.
Today questions about government business have come up. I have taken them in the order in which they are usually taken because that helps other members who have other duties to attend to, especially the House leaders. They can, therefore, leave the House if they are not concerned with what is to follow. The hon. member is right but I have no choice but to follow the arrangements which are transmitted to me by the House leaders.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader concerning future business. There were commitments made about a proposal to create a- department of marine transportation, on which the Prime Minister commented, as well as the implementation of a marine industrial strategy, a policy for acquiring marine equipment in Canada and the bringing of foreign-registered ships into Canada.
Does the government have any intention of developing any of those marine industrial programs so that Canadian marine workers will have jobs, instead of-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This seems to me to be a question that could be asked during question period. It does not deal with government business.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, the last time we met on December 18, before the House adjourned for the Christmas recess, the Minister of Finance made a statement to the House. I have a question for the government House leader which relates directly to what the minister said. On page 14237 of Hansard, the minister is reported as having said:
In addition to what I said, Mr. Speaker, given appropriate parliamentary arrangements, I am prepared to consider referring several matters to a parliamentary committee.
Further down the page we find the following:
These matters include rules relating to corporate reorganization, taxation of whole life insurance-
The minister included charitable foundations, retirement allowances and work in progress. Specifically, would the government House leader give us an interpretation of what the minister means when he said "prepared to consider referring several matters to a parliamentary committee"? Can he tell us when these matters will be referred to a parliamentary committee and in what form they will be referred? Can he also give us the assurance that those sections of the ways and means motion which relate to those matters will be withdrawn until such time as they have been considered by that parliamentary committee?
Those are my three very specific questions. I wonder if the government House leader could deal with them since they very directly relate to remarks made in the last sitting by the Minister of Finance.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will inquire of the Minister of Finance and will gladly report to the hon. member through his House leader.


Mr. Keeper:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. I would like to know when or if the government will introduce legislation into this House to provide for a program of employment through municipalities across this country, particularly given the fact that the government recently cut back on funding to municipalities and therefore added to the unprecedented high level of unemployment in this country. When will the government introduce an employment program applied through the municipalities to create some employment in this country to get the economy moving again?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I will inquire of the minister responsible for such policy, and if it is the intention of the government to introduce any legislation, I will be glad to let the hon. member know through his House leader.
January 25, 1982


Mr. Kristiansen:: Madam Speaker, I have a question as well for the government House leader on a matter of House business. It arises from commitments given to a number of members of all three parties shortly before the Christmas break. It relates to a request that the Minister of the Environment discuss with the government House leader the setting up of a special committee or a special task force on forestry across Canada. That commitment was given in the standing committee, and it may be that either the minister or, perhaps, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry has now discussed it with the government House leader. If so, would the government House leader advise us whether those consultations have taken place, and advise us of the decision, if any? If there has been a decision, when will we be likely to see him bring forward a government House order in the House so that we can get on with that task force study which has been requested by the IWA, the Canadian Forestry Association and both opposition parties over the last number of months?


Yvon Pinard: The hon. member must understand that it will be necessary for me to inquire of the minister what he said in committee. If anything must be done on this subject, I will be glad to report to the hon. member through his House leader.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have a question of privilege concerning which I gave Your Honour notice. Therefore, I am deferring to my colleagues who, I believe, still have important questions on House business.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way on government business?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, Madam Speaker. I have an important question on House business with regard to the energy security act. I am in receipt of a copy of a letter from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to the Conservative critic on energy, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, in which the minister rejects splitting up the energy security act.
My question is, when does the government expect that that act will be tabled in a revised form? Will there be revisions to the act to include an energy tax grant, an energy grant to the old people of this country and to the other poor people who are forced to pay very high prices for energy and are getting no relief from the government? Does he expect that kind of an amendment when the bill comes in, and when will it come in?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, that is a very good question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I will be glad to talk to him and report to the hon. member through his House leader.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have a second question for the House leader concerning the introduction of combines legislation. Could the House leader indicate when we might expect the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act? Will we be forced to wait until after the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission has reported and the provisions for the Kent commission have been established in the House?
Business of the House


Yvon Pinard: I am sure that the hon. member is very serious in his question. Therefore, if after consultation with the appropriate minister I am in the position to give him a very serious answer, I will do that through his House leader.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton on House business?


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Yes, Madam Speaker. My question is directed to the government House leader. In view of the fact that well over one million Canadians are unemployed, has the government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William C. Scott: I want to ask the House leader, considering the fact that Unemployment Insurance Commission offices are taxed to the point of overload and people cannot get their benefits or even register complaints, what plans have been made by the government to streamline the Unemployment Insurance Commission-


Madam Speaker:: That is not government business. That could be asked during the course of the question period.
The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody on government business?


Mr. Rose:: Madam Speaker, the questions we are asking relate to unemployment. We would like to know what legislation might be forthcoming to deal with that very serious and tragic problem in Canada. Nearly a year ago a task force of this House presented a report-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. No speeches. Simply ask a question concerning whatever legislation the hon. member seeks information.


Mark Willson Rose: It is certainly not my intention at all to abuse the privileges of the House or the Speaker. However, I would like to ask the government House leader a question. Both the Department of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Science Council of Canada believe that conservation initiatives and alternative energy measures are far more labour intensive than megaprojects and Candu reactors, things which are currently preoccupying our energy department. Is the minister aware of any legislation about to come before this House which would be a positive government response to alternative energy, the report and the nature of that-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is obviously arguing the question.


Mark Willson Rose: I wonder if I could just restate-


Madam Speaker:: No, order!


Mark Willson Rose: Well, on a point of order-


Madam Speaker:: Order! The hon. member is arguing the question. He had a precise question. Once he had asked that

January 25, 1982
Business of the House
question, that was sufficient. If the hon. minister has a reply, he may now reply to that question.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, there are many ways to deal with this situation. We have a budget. We will have many bills flowing from that budget which will be debated the minute the NDP will allow this Parliament to work. We are ready to work with very good legislation to help farmers in this country. We have a bill today, Bill C-85, Canagrex, with which we are not able to proceed because many questions which could be put later on or through House leaders are being posed by the hon. members of the NDP. Therefore, from now on, out of respect for the farmers of this country, I will take note of all questions on House business and report to the House leaders at the next meeting.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi on House business?


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Yes, Madam Speaker. In view of the serious problems to be discussed in this Parliament, I wonder when hon. members opposite will let us get on with House business and stop trying to score cheap political points.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Murphy:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as House leader for the government. In view of the lay-offs which have occurred in the mining communities of Leaf Rapids and Lynn Lake in my riding, I was wondering whether the government will introduce legislation to ensure that it knows ahead of time when massive lay-offs will take place, that government officials will meet with company and union officials to decide whether such lay-offs are indeed necessary, or whether there might be ways of getting around lay-offs, such as on-the-job training programs and government funds to provide for communities such as Leaf Rapids and Lynn Lake. Does the government have any plans to introduce such legislation, or to see if they are necessary, to make sure that the-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Comox-Powell River.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have another question for the House leader since he is so forthcoming on matters of legislation. Could the House leader tell us if there will be amendments to the Indian Act this session of Parliament? Does the government intend to allow companion legislation to accompany changes in the Indian Act so that independent bands would be allowed to develop as their status would require?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I have a further question for the government House leader. Considering the amount of unemployment in the lumber and construction industries in this country, does the government have any plans to increase
housing for native people to help boost employment in the woods, in the lumber and construction industries, and also provide needed housing for native people in this country?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You're dragging, boys; pick it up. Show more enthusiasm.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council and government House leader. It refers to cow-calf operations in western Canada. Will the minister indicate whether the government is going to bring forward concrete and precise legislation which will indicate once and for all the government's intention regarding beef marketing boards, in view of the uncertainty and confusion existing particularly in cow-calf operations in western Canada?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I have a short question for the government House leader. The hon. member for Brant put the following question to the government House leader: Is there a special program, a special policy or a special bill aimed at fighting unemployment in Canada? He also pointed out that a number of people had been laid off in Ontario and Quebec and that there were many problems in southern Ontario, more specifically in the riding of Brant. I would appreciate it if the minister would say whether a special program exists at this time for the purpose of fighting unemployment in Canada. This is a very short question and I do want an answer.


Mr. Parker:: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the government House leader. It is with regard to the heavy lay-offs in the lumber industry in British Columbia. Hundreds of people are being laid off. The railways are being affected by this. Is the minister prepared to bring in legislation to deal with those kinds of lay-offs, which are manifesting over and over-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. These are all questions which would be better answered during the course of the question period. I remind hon. members that government business does not, in the terms we consider it at this period, have the scope to cover all government activities for all time. Government business has to do with what is being proposed in terms of legislation to be put before this House. It is legislation that has been announced by ministers. Hon. members know it will come forward at some time. I think members are abusing this particular time for questioning the President of the Privy Council on government business.


Erik Nielsen: Not all members.


Madam Speaker:: It cannot address the whole scope of government activities and government business.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would really appreciate an answer from the government House leader on this impor-
January 25, 1982

tant matter which affects Canada's children. Inasmuch as last spring and for a number of months the health and welfare committee-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, just rule that out of order.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow that as government business. I really cannot.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have a question that I would ask the minister to answer. The Canadian people are really angry, even if the Tories are not. They want some answers from the government. My question is this.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Members should be reminded that there is a time for debating and a time for asking questions about government business. Government business does not deal with debate. I cannot allow debate to take place at this time. Hon. members will understand that if I do, what will happen will be a prolongation of the question period without any proportion of questions allocated to the different parties in this House. I cannot allow that. If members have questions relating to government business that has been announced, they can ask them. Otherwise I will have to rule them out of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my question did relate to that. I will try to phrase it slowly. With regard to the reshuffle of the cabinet, the DREE minister and the minister for external affairs, can we expect legislation dealing with that reshuffle? Second, since DREE is affected, when will there be special legislation with respect to unemployment in the maritime provinces where we are told people are really suffering? Can I get an answer to that question? It is a reasonable question.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member will recall the minister said that from now on he will take notice of all questions. He may answer them if he wishes. That is the reason I am not recognizing him after each question. He said he would take notice of them and report globally.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. The last minister of DREE promised the hon. member for Joliette and myself that we would have a new RDIA act in the fall of 1981 or the spring of 1982. Does the government intend to keep that commitment? I have no minister to whom I can direct that question.


Erik Nielsen: You have no question.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council and government House leader. I would like to know if and when the government will be introducing legislation in this House to provide a framework for democratic economic planning so that the problem of unemployment in this country can be attacked in a just and participatory fashion rather than ignored.
Business of the House


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the government House leader and President of the Privy Council. Prior to rising for Christmas, the minister responsible for DREE indicated to us that he was prepared to reconsider legislation that refers to DREE boundaries in order to bring parts of Canada under DREE agreements where they presently do not exist. My question to the minister is, can we expect this legislation shortly or do we have to wait at least another year for any action?


Mr. Miller:: Madam Speaker, my question to the government House leader is with regard to Bill C-8, the coastal protection bill. Many fishermen in Atlantic Canada are concerned about that bill. They are already hard hit by lay-offs in the industry. There is considerable concern that any increase in pollution in the area will further decrease the income of fishermen. Can we be assured that Bill C-8 will be put before the House very soon?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, will the House leader be presenting legislation following up the report on Canada's children which was studied and presented last spring by the health and welfare committee, dealing particularly with poverty, which is really soul-destroying for many of Canada's children and their parents?


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I would ask the House leader if it is the government's intention to bring forward legislation on the air accident investigation tribunal as recommended by the Dubin commission. Will the government committee that has been struck report to the House of Commons with its recommendations before the government drafts that legislation?


Mr. Benjamin:: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport indicated that legislation would be incorporated establishing a VIA Rail act. It still has not reached the Order Paper. Can the minister tell us if the bill is ready and when it will be called for first reading? When will it be called for debate?


Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, my question to the House leader relates to the task force of the British Columbia fishing industry which has had a mandate to discuss licensing of fishermen. It is a very serious problem. In view of the fact that the Royal Bank of Canada is now consolidating its position on ownership of licences, could the House leader indicate if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is anticipating any early action to curtail the ownership of licences in the hands of the Royal Bank of Canada?


Miss Jewett:: Madam Speaker, I too would like to address a question on House business to the House leader. It concerns a commitment made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare a few months ago to address urgently the matter of senior citizens living in poverty.
In light of the report of the National Council of Welfare today that 41.5 per cent of families headed by females are living below the poverty line, can the House leader tell the

January 25, 1982
Business of the House
House how soon his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, will be addressing, through legislation, the incredible and shockingly serious situation?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Privy Council and government House leader. It refers to the Small Business Development Bond which was to be the leverage for providing funding to small businesses of an unincorporated nature and farmers. As we know, that bill has been gutted. Will the minister indicate to this House whether the government will fulfil its promise to expand the small business development bond with an emphasis on development? Will he indicate when that measure will come in and if, in fact, it will be available to firms and farmers other than those in dire straits or who are going into bankruptcy?


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader and President of the Privy Council. I hope that he not only takes notice of this question but will take some action on it. Previous federal budgets have promised investment in the area of urban transit, an action that would provide significant employment at a time when there is a high level of unemployment. When will the minister be bringing forth legislation in this House that will provide for a comprehensive plan of investment in urban transit across this country?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my question concerns the freedom of information act which the government is stalling in committee. Could the minister tell the House when the government proposes to bring that measure out of committee and into the House for final reading so we in the opposition can obtain some information as to why there is no industrial strategy, or why the industrial strategy has been rejected in Canada to solve Canada's very serious unemployment problem? Will the minister tell us when he expects that freedom of information act to come back to the House so that we may get that required information on the government's failure to act on unemployment?


Mark Willson Rose: I have a question relating to unemployment insurance and how farm workers are treated by that legislation. Section 16 requires them to work for the same employer for 25 days in order to qualify. This does not apply to plumbers or carpenters. Will the government House leader ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration when he intends to amend Section 16-


Madam Speaker:: Order. That is not government business.


Mr. Sargeant:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if he can tell the House when the government will bring before the House the long promised revisions to UIC regulations? In particular, I am concerned about the unfairness of the regulations as they apply to freshwater fishermen who often reach their quotas before they have the particular number of days necessary to qualify for unemployment insurance. Would the government House leader tell
us when legislation concerning this will be brought before the House?


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, during the question period I was asked to produce and table an agreement and I agreed to do so. I understood that the agreement to which the hon. member who asked the question was referring, was the policing contract between the province of British Columbia and the federal government. He subsequently sent me a note indicating that in fact he was referring to an agreement between Olson and the "E" Division of the RCMP.
I am prepared to table the policing contract between the government of British Columbia and the federal government. In fact, I think that that document may already have been tabled. However, I am not prepared to table the agreement which the hon. member asked for in his note. I have not seen the blues and I am not certain whether he made it clear.


Charles Joseph Clark: Abundantly.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: If he was referring to the agreement between Olson and "E" Division of the RCMP, my position on that is simply that that agreement is part of the provincial policing service and control over it is in the hands of the British Columbia government, and in particular in the hands of the attorney general of that province.
Although I have a copy of that agreement, if I took any other position and made it public, I believe I would be undermining the administration of justice in that province.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, in relation especially to the quality and the relevance of the Solicitor General's (Mr. Kaplan) answers in the House over the last couple of years, I always had the impression that he was often in dreamland during question period and he certainly proved that today.
My question specifically related to the Olson RCMP agreement. As a matter of fact, I referred to certain clauses of the policing agreement to point out that it was under the strict supervision and control of the Government of Canada in relation to internal police services, especially the management of provincial police services and the administration and application of police procedures in British Columbia.
As a matter of fact, I was very careful with my wording and I emphasized it a couple of times. The very last section of my question to the Solicitor General was: "Would the Solicitor General summarize the important parts of the agreement the RCMP made with Olson and immediately table that agreement?" That was the end of my question. The Solicitor General then stood up and indicated, I thought within the
January 25, 1982

hearing of everybody-certainly it went out over the airwaves and I think is already on the wire service emanating from Ottawa-that the Solicitor General was going to do exactly that.
If that had not been his answer, I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the members of this House have been put in the very unfair position of being under the assumption that the agreement would be tabled. He now says again-another contradiction, one of many in this whole fiasco-that he misunderstood the question. I do not think that that is good enough. I think that the hon. minister has misled the House. It may not have been intentional, but nevertheless it is part of the whole sorry facade that we have been listening to in regard to this matter and I must object most strenuously to it.
Before I take my seat, may I point out that I have another question of privilege arising from the procedure witnessed in the House this afternoon.


Madam Speaker:: I want to make sure that hon. members understand that this was a point of order and that both members have made their point. However, I am grateful to the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) for making his remarks brief. I can see that he does not accept the point made by the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and that is his privilege, but he has made his remarks brief and I think that should be an example to all members.


PRIVILEGE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I rise on a completely separate question of privilege. It is on the matter of raising a question of privilege. 1 think it has been one of the guardians of parliamentary democracy that when the Chair or Table receives notice of a question of privilege, that question of privilege cuts like a hot knife through all other procedures of the House and all other business before the House. I am not talking about the phony facade of a public relations effort such as we have heard this afternoon.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Oh, come on.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am talking about a question of privilege taking priority over everything else. Madam Speaker, it is enshrined as one of the basic fundamentals of the procedures of the House. It is indicated very, very clearly in the rules and in every precedent and antecedent in connection with every Speaker in this House-and, as far as I know, every other House which has the British parliamentary system-that privilege takes priority over everything else.
You have mentioned, Madam Speaker, that on Thursday, through an arrangement with the House leaders, the tradition
Privilege-Mr. Deans
is that we do not delay the House leaders; they are permitted to raise questions, not of government business but of House business. I suggest to Your Honour that even though this is 1982 and the year of metric reforms, as far as I know this is still Monday. As far as I know there was no prior arrangement made with Your Honour or with the members of this House relating to the business of this House. Therefore, I submit that unless Your Honour has some better alibi or excuse than we have heard so far-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -we should get back to the rules and precedents of this House and stick to rule 81(1) as indicated on page 25 of Beauchesne.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, I do have explanations to make to the hon. member which are completely in accordance with the rules of the House and the practices which have been accepted traditionally in this House.
Questions concerning government business are usually taken up on Thursdays, and they take precedence over questions of privilege through an arrangement made among the House leaders.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: We had better change the rules.


Madam Speaker:: Questions relating to government business do occur on other days of the week as well and are accepted immediately after the question period. That has been the practice ever since I have been here. Therefore, I have not derogated from that practice.
Prior to an arrangement made some time ago-I do not remember the date, but it was made during the time my predecessor was Speaker of the House-questions of privilege were sometimes raised during question period. Although the hon. member is right in saying that questions of privilege should cut through any debate taking place in the House of Commons like a hot knife, through an arrangement among all the House leaders questions of privilege, which previously were usually accepted during question period, were delayed until after the question period; and since there is an arrangement concerning government business, questions of privilege are taken after government business. That is what I intend to do.


MR. DEANS-APPOINTMENT OF SENATOR TO CABINET-LACK OF PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to raise a matter which I consider to be a question of privilege and to put it before Your Honour for your consideration.
At the outset I want to say that when Your Honour recognized me some time ago on this matter of privilege, I asked permission to raise a question with the House leader, and that permission was given by the Chair with the concurrence of the House; so therefore I assumed there was unanimous consent to do that.

January 25, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Deans
In any event, according to Beauchesne:
The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers". They are enjoyed by individual Members-
I want to put to Your Honour that a practice has grown up which has eroded my privileges as a member. There is in the land at the moment considerable concern about the economy. It is necessary for me as a member to be able to place before the House of Commons a number of questions directly related to economic matters. It is important that those questions be put in the House of Commons to someone who is held responsible for the administration of matters economic, and at the moment the minister who is primarily responsible for economic matters sits in the other place. There is no parliamentary secretary sitting in the House of Commons who answers directly for the senator who has the primary responsibility for matters of economic direction by the Government of Canada as it relates to industrial development.
I therefore put it to Your Honour that under the interpretations both of Erskine May and of Beauchesne-the interpretation which I just recently placed before you-it is of vital importance that there be an opportunity for members to be able to exercise the privilege which enables them to execute their powers, which I am being denied. Not only I, but also every other member of the House of Commons, is being denied a privilege which heretofore we had.
I therefore ask, Madam Speaker, that you consider whether it is appropriate for a member of the Senate to be given a senior portfolio in the cabinet of the government without there sitting in the House of Commons a member who is designated to answer all questions which might otherwise be asked of that minister who has the power to exercise jurisdiction.


Madam Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member because I feel that the question he has raised as a question of privilege is not a question of privilege. It has been a practice of this government and of several governments before to appoint ministers who sit in the other House and to designate a minister or ministers who may answer questions members of this House might have concerning the responsibilities of a particular ministry. At any rate, they can be asked of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), should no minister have been designated. The fact that senators sitting in the other House are appointed ministers is a well established practice and, of course, cannot be questioned. Perhaps this is a question concerning the administration of the government, but it cannot be raised as a question of privilege. So I am afraid that the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr Deans) is not founded.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I am tabling a list of cabinet committees and their members. As a convenience to the House I suggest this list be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For list referred to above, see Appendix.]


MOTIONS TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26
Madam Speaker:: I have received two written statements requesting emergency debates under Standing Order 26, one from the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) and one from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). Since the first application I received was the one from the hon. member for Oshawa, I will hear his statement now.


THE ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the fact that Canada now faces its most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, with unemployment at a post-war record of 8.6 per cent-in real numbers well over a million Canadians-and inflation at 12.5 per cent, both constituting a national emergency requiring, therefore, an immediate program for national economic recovery with job creation as its highest priority.


Madam Speaker:: While the Chair recognizes the importance and the seriousness of this matter, the House will agree that the state of the economy has unfortunately been a recurring subject for debate since the beginning of this session and that a change in the figures relating to unemployment and inflation does not necessarily mean that the business of the House should be set aside in order to have an emergency debate.
January 25, 1982

It must also be understood that the Speaker's only duty in this instance-and I hope this is well understood-is to determine whether the request for an immediate debate meets the requirements of Standing Order 26. One such requirement can be found in Subsection (5) of Standing Order 26, where it is stated that the Speaker " ... shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means".
Let me also quote Citation 287 of Beauchesne's fifth edition:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
The Chair cannot ignore the fact that there will be other opportunities to debate this matter during the current supply period.
Therefore, although the subject matter of this application is of the greatest importance and of concern to all members of the House, because of the continuing nature of the problem and because of the fact that other opportunities will arise to deal with this matter, I cannot accept the hon. member's application for an emergency debate.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, as you have indicated, I am rising pursuant to Standing Order 26 regarding a matter that is of the utmost urgency. The situation in Poland continues to be critical. It is not clear if military rule will end within the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, food continues to be in extremely short supply. Large numbers of citizens are imprisoned under inhuman conditions. Despite martial law, the economic crisis is deepening and the possibility of default on loans from western banks, including Canadian banks, continues. Many Polish citizens, particularly sailors, have chosen Canada as a place of refuge. Several western governments have begun to apply sanctions against the Soviet Union and Poland and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) has indicated that Canada is also considering the possibility of sanctions.
Because Canada's attitude to the imposition of military rule has become significant in Poland itself and within the NATO alliance, because sanctions will have an impact on Canada's economy as well as Poland's and because trade and immigration considerations have given Canada an interest in the course of the crisis, I believe the House of Commons should have the opportunity to register its feelings with the government and the people of Poland on behalf of Canada and to urge the Government of Canada to make it clear that Canadians do not approve of the imposition or the course of martial law in Poland.
Motion to Adjourn
If Your Honour finds that the Polish crisis raises important issues in Canada's foreign policy on which the House should be heard, I would move at the appropriate time that the House do now adjourn.


Madam Speaker:: In this particular case the Standing Order states that the matter must be specific and important, requiring urgent consideration, and indeed the subject of the right hon. member's application meets some of these criteria. Hon. members will recall that the House dealt with this subject last December when two motions were proposed and debated and another motion was adopted by the House.
There is no doubt that the right hon. member raises a very important subject, but I cannot ignore the provisions of Standing Order 26(5) which require me to have regard to the extent to which the matter concerns the administrative responsibility of the government or could come within the scope of ministerial action.
The right hon. member has not made that relationship sufficiently clear for me to conclude that there are grounds for allowing debate under the Standing Order, where a debate might demonstrate that some urgent domestic component would resolve or help resolve the particular crisis in Poland, or the impact that the suggestions made in the course of that debate would have inside Canada.
Undoubtedly there will be other avenues that can be pursued in achieving a debate upon this very important subject. As hon. members are aware, tomorrow has been designated as a supply day and the right hon. member may wish to consider this possibility.
Therefore, with regret, I must decline the right hon. member's application.


MOTION TO ADJOURN
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I move the adjournment of the House.


Madam Speaker:: I need a motion in writing from the hon. member.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it is on its way.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has just moved the adjournment of the House and his motion was not in writing, as is required by the Standing Orders. We on this side of the House are ready to work and Canadians expect this Parliament to work. The NDP wants Parliament to rest and not sit today. That is a shame, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have the motion and it is my duty to put it to the House immeditately. It is moved by the hon. member

January 25, 1982
Motion to Adjourn
for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That the House do adjourn.
All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those against the motion please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
* *
*


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,520, 2,131, 2,274,	2,497,	2,587,2,645, 2,656,	2,772,	2,807,	2,987,	3,023,	3,024,	3,047,	3,050,3,051, 3,054,	3,104,	3,140,	3,146,	3,149,	3,166,	3,170,	3,214,3,261, 3,267,	3,272,	3,280,	3,295,	3,297,	3,318,	3,321,	3,322,
3,324, 3,332, 3,373, 3,379, 3,459, 3,486, 3,515, 3,550 and 3,552.


Mr. Herbert: On which buildings in the province of Quebec does the government fly the Quebec provincial flag in addition to the Canadian flag?


Yvon Pinard: In so
far as Public Works Canada is concerned, the government does not fly the Quebec provincial flag, in addition to the Canadian flag, on government buildings managed by the Department of Public Works.
In so far as Transport Canada is concerned, in addition to the Canadian flag, the Quebec provincial flag is flown on Canadian Air Transportation administration premises
January 25, 1982

throughout the province of Quebec when requested locally and when two flag staffs are available.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Since January 1, 1980, were studies conducted by the Department of the Environment concerning the location of a site for a liquefied natural gas terminal and, if so, what site or sites were recommended?
2.	(a) Was any site in New Brunswick considered (b) was a site recommended and was it rejected and, if so, for what reason?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: 1. No. See question No. 2,129 answered October 14, 1981.
2.	(a) Not applicable.
(b) Not applicable.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Does Canada have an arrangement with the government of Guyana to subsidize the export of Canadian newsprint to Guyana and, if so (a) under what conditions (b) what was the amount of (i) subsidized newsprint exported (ii) subsidy paid on newsprint exported to Guyana in 1978, 1979 and 1980?
2.	Does the government consider (a) there is a free press in Guyana (b) Guyana should receive financial assistance from Canada?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the answer is as follows:
1.	No. In 1978, Canada had provided Guyana with a line of credit to facilitate the purchase of Canadian newsprint but this arrangement has since been terminated.
(a)	The terms of the line of credit approved by the Treasury Board in December, 1978, were no interest, ten years of grace, and 50 years to maturity.
(b)	(i) Canada provided 2,100 metric tons net of newsprint
under the line of credit:
(ii) Under the line of credit Guyana purchased Canadian newsprint in 1979 at a cost of $1.5 million.
In so far as the Secretary of State for External Affairs is concerned:
2.	(a) It is not ordinary practice for a government to comment on the internal affairs of a friendly state. It might be noted, however, that, according to the information available to us, the principal newspapers in Guyana at present are The Chronicle, published by the governing People's National Congress Party, The Mirror, published by the opposition People's Progressive Party and the Catholic Standard.
(b) Yes. Canadian development assistance is provided to Guyana as a contribution toward the economic development of the country and the well-being of the Guyanese people. Assistance is not supplied to any political party and has never been given with a view to influencing the political process.
Order Paper Questions MINISTERIAL PERMITS


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,724, which states in part that 31 persons with criminal records were admitted to Canada through the Canadian Consulate in Buffalo between April 20, 1978 and September 30, 1980, what was the nature of the criminal record in each case and what were the humanitarian grounds which "overrode" the criminal records to the point where entry into Canada was permitted?


Lloyd Axworthy: Listed below are the 16 cases in which a total of 31 ministerial permits were issued between April 1, 1978, and September 30, 1980, by our Buffalo, New York office, showing in each case the nature of the criminal conviction and the grounds for issuing the permits:
Nature of Criminal Conviction
1.	(a) Possession of barbituates -
(b) Contributing to delinquency of a minor - 1974 Possession of marijuana -1974
Possession of beer by a minor 1974
2.	Possession of marijuana
3.	Possession of Indian hemp in 1978
4.	Possession of Indian hemp in 1969 and 1978
5. (a)	Grand larceny 1958
(b)	Robbery in 3rd degree 1962
6.	(a)	Impaired driving 1972(b)	Violation of probation	1974(c)	Burglary in 3rd degree	19787.	(a)	Petty larceny 1947(b)	Possession of offensive
weapon 1948
8.	Burglary in 3rd degree 1974 Larceny in 3rd degree 1974 Using motor vehicle without permission 1974
9.	Possession of goods unlawfully imported into Canada 1975
10.	Possession and sale of dangerous drug 1973
11.	Petty larceny 1971
12.	Grand larceny in 2nd degree 1977
13.	Conspiracy to promote prostitution by interstate transportation 1972
14.	(a) Theft under $200, 1976 (b) Impaired driving 1977
15.	(a) Misdeameanor 1973 (b) Misdeameanor 1978
16.	Possession of controlled drug 1975
Grounds for Issuance of Permit
Allowed forward as a musician pending minister's approval of rehabilitation.
Allowed forward as a musician pending the minister's approval of rehabilitation.
Allowed forward as a musician to fill short engagement.
Allowed forward as a musician to fill short engagement.
Allowed forward as truck driver from international carrier for periods of a half day from time to time.
Allowed forward in company of Canadian citizen spouse visiting relatives for short periods.
Holiday visitor considered to have fully rehabilitated himself.
Allowed forward periodically to visit Canadian citizen spouse.
Allowed forward from time to time to visit summer residence.
Allowed forward as musician to fill engagements from time to time.
Allowed forward on short visits to purchase goods from Canadian suppliers.
Allowed forward for short Christmas visit to Canadian spouse.
Allowed forward to visit terminally ill parent.
Allowed forward from time to time to visit summer home.
Allowed forward as musician to fulfil series of engagements.
Allowed forward to join Canadian citizen spouse.

January 25, 1982
*
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: 1.	Were outside consultants employed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the 1980-81 fiscal year and, if so, how many and what was the total amount paid?
2.	Were any consultants paid more than $20,000 and, if so, in each case (a) what was his/her name (b) what was the amount (c) what services were provided?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of External Relations):: The
reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is the following:
1.	In fiscal year 1980-81, 146 consulting and professional services contracts of $2,000 and over were awarded for a total commitment of $ 1,926,393.
2.	See following list.
Name of Consulting Firm
Services Provided
Amount
Committed
Andre Raynauld ct Associes Study and assess the federal government's Inc.	efforts to support economic development in
Quebec and define the main lines of action the federal government should pursue in future to ensure the province's economic development.
Atlantic Canada Plus	Do an indepth investigation of detail buying
Association	patterns in Atlantic Canada, including the
extent of which goods imported from outside the region are being purchased when competitive Atlantic manufacturing goods are available.
Bud Taylor
Management Consultants Limited
Assist departmental officials to specify an over-all management framework in planning and co-ordination, within which improvements in the management practices and controls may be made.
Bud Taylor	Assist the department to design and implement
Management Consultants a project reporting system and provide senior Limited	managers with required training.
CEG1R	Study the market for microcomputers.
Deleuw Canada Ltd.	Conduct a study on alignment options for
Wheeler Blvd. between Mountain Road and Church Street in Moncton, N.B. and present a clear recommendation on the most acceptable option.
Demers, Beaulne,
Lachapelle & Associes
Demers, Beaulne,
Lachapelle & Associes
DPA Consulting Ltd.
DPA Consulting Ltd.
Visit several businesses and verify assets eligible for incentives under special area programs.
Visit several businesses and verify assets eligible for incentives under special area programs.
Assist the department in conducting a study of different approaches to regional development such as a fund concept.
Develop for the department a preliminary study or profile of the potential market for microelectronics applications in Canada with particular emphasis on the likelihood of regional application of any new growth in this sector.


[Stage Direction]
Econanalysis Inc.
F.	H. Hayhurst Limited
G.	Robert & Assocs Inc.
H.	Schreiber Consulting Service Inc.
Keith Consulting Ltd.
Kurt Salmon Associates
Lamb, Guay Inc.
Major et Martin Inc.
Orlikow, Lionel
Peat, Marwick and Partners
Plurimar Inc.
P.T. Dixon
Management Consultants
Reid, Crowther and Partners Ltd.
Reid. Crowther & Partners Ltd.
R.S. Wallace and Assoc. Ltd.
Secor Inc.
Sem-Eng Limited
SIAR Incorporated
Stefanson, Matthes, Lee and
Co.
The Caldwell Partners Underwood McLellan Limited
Assist the department by consolidating and revising drafts of material in order to prepare a project assessment manual, in a form suitable for publication.
Carry out a review of current communications activities and recommend a plan to improve the effectiveness of this function.
Assist department officials in designing up to camera-ready stage, an international industrial promotion kit in both official languages to stimulate foreign investment.
Study industrial prospects in the Quebec plastics industry.
Provide engineering services during construction of watermains and sewage outfall line for the city of Estevan, Sask.
Study the comparative production costs for broadcloth made from polyester filament yarn in Canada and the United States.
Study the feasibility of establishing a frozen food plant in the St. Maurice River region.
Study the market for variable-speed electric motors.
Prepare a series of program proposals that will have as their goal, the increase and enhancement of socio-economic opportunities for native people living in major urban Saskatchewan centres.
Provide the department with a report on the financial results of several publicly supported projects in the Sask. steel and related metal industries by completing financial appraisals of the projects.
Conduct a market study to see how well known DREE is in Quebec and what impact the 1980 advertising campaign had.
Provide the services of a senior consultant to advise departmental officials on the development of a departmental policy for the audit of contribution payments.
Provide consultative, advisory pre-design and design services with respect to water supply and sewage collection facilities for the city of Moose Jaw.
Prepare detailed designs, drawings, specifications and cost estimates for the construction of an effluent forcemain for the city of Weyburn, Saskatchewan.
Assisi departmental officials in the calibration and application of the Socio-Economic Highways Analysis Systems.
Economic development study for metropolitan Sherbrooke.
Assist the department in providing professional and co-ordination services for the development of a DREE handbook on public affairs which can be used as a communications tool for both internal and external publics.
Provide the department with expert assistance in the field of industry analysis in the conduct of the assessment of a proposal for a kraft pulp mill to be located in Manitoba.
Perform on-site inspections of facilities assisted under the Regional Development Incentives Act.
Undertake an executive search to obtain a suitable executive to head the Cape Breton Coke Development office planned for Halifax.
Provide engineering services' for design of treated water storage reservoir for the town of Tisdale, Saskatchewan.
[Stage Direction]
Dunwoody & Company
Assist in the evaluation of applications under $22,000 Universite de Montreal provisions of RDIA.
Make the necessary arrangements to hold a	$22,410
seminar.
[Stage Direction]


January 25, 1982
Mr. McCain: Did the National Harbours Board engage outside legal counsel to defend an action brought by Joseph Likely Ltd. concerning a matter involving the Port of Saint John, New Brunswick and, if so, what amount was paid to date for the services and to whom was it paid?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: Yes. The amount paid to date is $85,787.25. It was paid to Mr. Mockler from the legal firm of Hoyt, Mockler, Allen and Dixon.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past five years, by province, what percentage of the total spending was the amount transferred unconditionally by the government to provincial treasuries for post-secondary education?
Order Paper Questions
2.	At what level of instruction does the government consider that post-secondary education starts?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: 1. The table below shows the amounts transferred unconditionally by the Government of Canada to provincial treasuries for post-secondary education in each of the past five years.
2.	The legislation authorizing the aforementioned unconditional transfers does not define the level of instruction at which post-secondary education starts. Other programs such as the Canada Student Loans Program, have their own definitions, as does Statistics Canada for statistical purposes. The CSLP is limited to the post-secondary level., i.e. any student attending full time at an educational institution other than an elementary or secondary school.
Established Programs Financing 1977 Post-Secondary Education (SOOO's)
1977-1978'	1978-I9792	1979-I9803	Cash	Tax	Total	Cash	Tax	Total	Cash	Tax	TotalNewfoundland	27,519	21,166	48,685	33,829	23,462	57,291	41,558	25,631	67,189Prince Edward Island	5,474	4,511	9,985	7,043	4,057	12,100	8,910	5,457	14,367Nova Scotia	43,532	31,336	74,868	51,598	34,400	85,998	61,406	37,878	99,284New Brunswick	33,787	25,785	59,572	41,472	28,682	70,154	50,772	31,323	82,095Quebec	249,505	349,535	599,040	275,520	393,489	669,009	317,849	422,210	740,059Ontario	418,543	348,633	767,176	494,128	385,1 15	879,243	578,433	417,629	996,062Manitoba	55,959	38,620	94,579	64,658	41,642	106,300	74,757	45,920	120,677Saskatchewan	47,926	35,163	83,089	57,591	38,983	96,574	69,469	42,485	111,954Alberta	84,542	91,605	176,147	100,939	102,471	203,410	121,685	113,553	235,238British Columbia	107,152	110,004	217,156	133,128	122,996	256,124	167,372	133,396	300,768Yukon	918	1,151	2,069	1,105	1,236	2,341	1,270	1,352	2,622Northwest Territories	2,319	1,691	4,010	2,645	1,899	4,544	3,012	2,140	5,152Total 1 Final calculation (29/9/80).	1,077,176	1,059,200	2,136,376	1,263,656	1,179,432	2,443,088	1,496,493	1,278,974	2,775,4672	Second interim adjustment (29/9/80).3	First interim adjustment (29/9/80).1980-19814	1981-19825	Cash	Tax	Total	Cash	Tax	TotalNewfoundland	45,884	28,658	74,542	50,644	32,267	82,911Prince Edward Island	9,835	6,143	15,978	10,803	6,884	17,687Nova Scotia	67,453	42,130	109,583	74,214	47,285	121,499New Brunswick	55,948	34,945	90,893	61,612	39,255	100,867Quebec	349,525	460,732	810,257	378,732	517,430	896,162Ontario	636,747	464,917	1,101.664	698,284	524,354	1,222,638Manitoba	81,363	50,818	132.181	88,910	56,648	145,558Saskatchewan	76,687	47,897	124,584	93,827	44,948	138,775Alberta	133,983	133,848	267,831	155,034	150,668	305,702British Columbia	186,318	152,585	338,903	211,361	172,098	383,459Yukon	1,375	1,504	2,879	1,494	1,696	3,190Northwest Territories	3,249	2,278	5,527	3,464	2,568	6,032Total	1,648,367	1,426,455	3,074,822	1,828,379	1,596,101	3,424,4804	Second adjustment to advance (12/1/81).5	Advance calculation (12/1/81).
January 25, 1982
Order Paper Questions REPAIRS TO NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


Mr. Cossitt: 1. Did Mr. Donald Marriott, director of restaurants and catering of the National Arts Centre, have repairs made to the draft beer system at the National Arts Centre and, if so, at what cost, including plumbing?
2.	After the work was completed, did Mr. Marriott decide not to utilize the facility and order it removed and, if so, what was the total cost?


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the National Arts Centre as follows:
1.	No repairs to the draft beer system at the National Arts Centre, beyond routine maintenance, were ordered or made. Minor modifications were made for the 1980 season by NAC staff but the costs cannot be isolated.
2.	The system has not been used during the 1981 season but remains in place.


Mr. Flis: 1.	From 1976 to date, were money made available by departments to reduce racial tensions and, if so, which departments?
2.	In each case, what was the amount and to whom was it given?


Gerald Augustine Regan: 1. and 2. Grants and contribution records are not presently kept in such a way as to allow us to provide a complete list of grants and contributions given for the purpose of reducing of racial tensions.
However, following is a list of contracts entered into by the Department of the Secretary of State since 1976, which relate to projects aimed at addressing racial tensions:
Citizenship Branch: Program Services March 1976, $13,250-Dennis Adair and Janet Rosenstock, to produce a written report and tapes of classroom discussion on racism and discrimination in consultation with voluntary groups working in the area of human rights in Ontario and with the ministry of education.
Citizenship Branch: Group understanding and human rights April 1976, Consultant fees:
$1,150-Edward D. Parnell $ 300-Noel Kinsella $ 625-Thomas Symons $ 325-Tom McMillan $ 575-Errol Young $ 680-John W. Kehoe $ 275-Bruce Cook $ 300-Seymour Tregeir
For consultation to explore new measures for implementation to forward the objectives of the Decade for Action, to combat racism and racial discrimination along the lines of the measures suggested in the United Nations Decade program itself.
May 1976, $4,090-Dr. John W. Kehoe. To conduct a two-day workshop in various schools located in the three western provinces. The purpose of the workshop was to provide specific attitude-change and values-education strategies designed to improve group understanding.
Citizenship Branch: Citizens' participation program
July 1977, $25,000-Dr. Frances Henry. To write a report on "The Dynamics of Racism in Toronto", published February, 1978.
September 1977
$400-Fred Dunbar
$400-Paul Robinson
$125-Fred E. Whitworth For consultation on human rights and education.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): 1.	Was a wheelchair ramp constructed at the entrance to the Post Office building in Minden, Ontario and, if so, on what date was the work (a) begun (b) completed?
2.	What was the total cost of the project?
3.	What was the name of the contractor hired by the Department of Public Works?
4.	Was the project put out to tender and, if so, was the tender awarded to the lowest bidder?
5.	Were other alternatives to the project considered, such as modification to the existing ramp at the entrance to the building?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1. A
wheelchair ramp was installed at the entrance to the Post Office building in Minden, Ontario, (a) Work order was issued 30 March, 1981; (b) completed 15 May, 1981.
2. $6,820.
3.	Easton Brothers Builders Ltd., Bancroft, Ontario.
4.	The project was the subject of an invited quotation request to six contractors. Easton Bros. Builders Ltd. was the only contractor who submitted a quotation.
5.	There was no ramp at the entrance of the building prior to the installation of this ramp.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the government recently carry out renovations to the Post Office in Merrickville in the Constituency of Leeds-Grenville and, if so (a) what is a description of the renovations (b) what was the total cost?
2.	Were tenders called through public advertisement and (a) if so, what were the names of all those who tendered and what was the amount of each tender (b) if not, for what reason?
3.	Was the work done by invited tenders and, if so (a) from whom were tenders invited (b) what was the amount of each tender (c) who made the decision as to who was invited to tender?
4.	Was consideration given to the employment of local people and the purchase of material locally for the work and, if not, for what reason?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1. Yes.
January 25, 1982

(a)	New ramp and landscaping.
(b)	The contract was awarded in the amount of $18,000.
2. Yes.
M & S Martin Limited, Ottawa	$18,000
Roger Prevosl Construction Limited, Vanier Grecnside Construction Management Ltd.,	$18,834
Nepean	$20,769
Duvon Ottawa Limited, Nepean	$21,900
Ottawa G & C Construction, Nepean	$22,500
J.D. Construction, Ottawa	$23,900
Darvell & Family Limited, Ashton	$24,132
J.K.R. Holdings Limited, Ottawa	$24,580
Cody Construction, Brockville	$24,760
Vie-Bilt General Contractors Inc., Ottawa	$26,670
J.R.B. Construction Limited, Ottawa Not applicable.	$29,021
3.	No. (a), (b) and (c) Not applicable.
4.	Yes. Consideration was given through the use of public advertisement for the project.
1981 POSTAL STRIKE


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were any postal employees laid off because of the 1981 strike by the Canadian Union of Postal Employees?
2.	Did any of these employees receive unemployment insurance benefits and. if so, how many and at what cost to the taxpayer?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Canada Post Corporation and the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission/Department as follows:
1.	As defined in the Public Service Employment Act, no employee was laid off because of the 1981 postal strike, rather they were put on what is called "off duty status".
2.	CEIC computer records indicate that 15,185 postal employees received a total of $5,914,601 in unemployment insurance benefits during the 1981 strike.
These figures may not include all postal employees who received UI benefits during the strike because UI claimants are coded in accordance to occupation. Therefore, the figures given do not include occupations such as truck drivers, secretaries and other clerical and casual workers, which cannot be distinguished from non-post office occupations.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Is a study of the behaviour or neurochemical changes induced by microwaves to be conducted by Carleton University for the Department of National Defence at a cost of $37,186?
2.	Were similar studies done by the Department and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, for what reason were those results not used?
Order Paper Questions


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Supply and Services as follows:
1.	Yes. The Department of Supply and Services awarded a contract to Carleton University on June 17, 1981, for a Study of the Behavioural or Neurochemical Changes Induced by Microwaves (Non-Ionizing Radiation), at an estimated expenditure of $37,186.
2.	(a) No. The Department of National Defence has not carried out studies on the behavioural or neurochemical changes induced by microwaves. Their effort to date has been concentrated on absorption measurements and physiological effects which at the time the program was set up was considered to have had higher priority than the study now being conducted by Carleton University.
(b) Not applicable.


Mr. McKenzie: With reference to Section 10.17 of the 1980 report of the Auditor General, have measures been taken to correct the present inadequate resources and insufficient involvement by senior officials in the long-term planning process and, if so, what were they?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Corrective measures have been taken to improve the long-term planning process in Veterans Affairs. The measures have consisted of the recruitment of a number of new planning officers, the development of improved planning processes including a strategic planning process, and involvement of senior financial managers. The foundation for long-term plans has now been established, and the plans are in the development stages.


Mr. McKenzie: With reference to section 10.23 of the 1980 report of the Auditor General, is the Department of Veterans Affairs planning to remedy the present lack of suitable computer systems for regional use?


W. Bennett Campbell: The Department of Veterans Affairs has extensive plans to provide computer systems for regional use. To date, a telecommunications network and inquiry system, linked to a central computer in Ottawa, has been established in all districts and regional offices of the veterans services program.
A new computer system was recently installed in the Pacific region in support of war veterans allowances and civilian war allowances processes. It is planned to extend this and other systems to all regions by the end of the 1982-83 fiscal year.
New systems are also under development to provide support to both field and head office file registry operations. Implementation is planned for the first half of 1982.

January 25, 1982
Order Paper Questions DVA-ANALYSIS OF RELOCATION


Mr. McKenzie: With reference to section 10.35 of the 1980 report of the Auditor General, is the Department of Veterans Affairs considering the formulation of a full and comprehensive analysis of the relocation of the department after the move to Charlottetown is completed and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so (i) will the analysis be made public and will it include the short and long-term effects of the relocation on the department, on the veteran population, on the department's relationship with other departments and within the over-all governmental system (ii) will the department be calling on various interest groups to make representations in its preparation (iii) on what date can the House of Commons expect to be presented with the analysis?


W. Bennett Campbell: Yes.
(a)	Not applicable.
(b)	(i) Yes, in accordance with government guidelines. All known impacts of relocation, short and long term, will be evaluated.
(ii)	Various interest groups will be provided an opportunity to comment on the effectiveness of relocation as a part of the program evaluation activity. Representatives of one or more groups will actually be called upon to participate in an advisory committee on program evaluation.
(iii)	It is not normally the practice to present either program evaluations or an analysis, such as the one mentioned above, to the House of Commons. The findings of the analysis should be available 18 months to two years following the completion of relocation. A final evaluation can only be conducted after the program has been in effect for some period of time.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	During the period 1970-80 did the Public Works Lands Company Limited acquire shares or other ownership interest in any other corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and, if so, what was the (a) name of the corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and any subsidiaries thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d) book value of the acquisition?
2.	Does the Public Works Lands Company Limited have a plan to change the present portion of ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so, what is the plan?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1. No.
(a), (b), (c) and (d) Not applicable.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the government follow a code of advertising ethics and, if so, what is it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government does not have a specific code of advertising ethics but follows the generally accepted codes for advertising which are suggested in government regulations as well as guidelines which are recommended by various association groups concerned with ethics in advertising.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 2,754 concerning the installation of solar heat in the Brockville Federal Building in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville, what is the estimated cost for the installation and what is the estimated date on which the installation will commence?


Paul James Cosgrove: The
estimated cost for the installation of the solar domestic hot water heater in the Brockville Federal Building is $7,500. The estimated commencement date for installation is early 1982.


Mr. Skelly: 1.	Is the government considering a comprehensive Indian economic and employment development plan and, if so, what is the status of the plan and was the plan approved by the cabinet?
2.	Were revisions to the Indian Fishermens Assistance Program proposed by the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia and, if so, are the revisions being held up while the government considers the plan?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. The Minister of Finance on November 12, 1981, announced a $345 million program in aid of native economic development. Details of this new economic development program are currently being worked out and will be announced in due course.
2. Yes, such revisions were made in consultation with DIAND officials. The proposal is under active review and DIAND officials hope to meet again with representatives of the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia soon.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence place contracts in the amount of (a) $34,750 for jackets (b) $18,000 for slacks (c) $15,180 for skirts with Lounge Fashion Clothes Ltd. and, if so, in each case, how many items were purchased and for whom?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
Department of Supply and Services awarded three contracts, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, to Lounge Fashion Clothes Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., for the manufacture of ladies services dress jackets, slacks and skirts. They are required for issue to female members of the regular force and primary reserve. They have not yet been delivered. Quantities called up are as follows: (a) 500 jackets (b) 500 slacks (c) 460 skirts.
There are very few sources of supply for large quantity procurement of ladies structured (tailored) garments in Canada. The quantities called up on these three small contracts represent less than 5 per cent of the department's annual maintenance requirements. This was an attempt by the Department of Supply and Services to develop a new source of supply in western Canada for this type of uniform.
January 25, 1982


Mir. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	(a) How many of the 17-cent stamps with the Queen's head were printed (b) were they all printed and distributed at the same time (c) were there additional printings and, if so (i) how many (ii) how many stamps were in each printing (d) is a further printing contemplated and, if so, on what date and in what quantity?
2.	(a) Since the stamp was first issued, how many special 17-cent issues were made, including famous artists, famous Canadian women and antique instruments (b) how many stamps or sheets of stamps, where sheets contain as many as four different stamps, were issued in each case?
3.	(a) How many 17-cent stamps with the Peace Tower were printed (b) were they all printed and distributed at the same time (c) were there additional printings and, if so (i) how many (ii) how many stamps were in each printing (d) is a further printing contemplated and, if so, on what date and in what quantity?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. (a) 903.7 million stamps with the Queen's portrait, (b) No. (c) Yes, printings have been made to meet operational needs, (c) (i) 24 printings.
(c) (ii)
Sheet format	9 printings	800 million stamps50c book (each	11 printings	51.2 million stamps
book containing
Order Paper Questions
2.	Where are the swordfish, which are caught by the vessels, marketed and does the marketing have an adverse effect on the Canadian swordfish industry?
3.	What was the economic value of the Canadian swordfish industry in terms of size of the catch and other benefits in (a) 1981 (b) any prior years in which the industry was in operation?
4.	Are steps being taken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to assist the Canadian swordfish industry on the east coast in the marketing of swordfish in the United States and elsewhere and, if so, what steps?
5.	What non-Canadian fishermen are authorized to catch swordfish in Canadian territorial waters and is the marketing of their catch adversely affecting the Canadian swordfish industry?
6.	(a) What action was taken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or any other government agency to regulate control and to monitor the fishing activity of the Japanese vessels (b) were violations reported and, if so, what were they?
7.	Were arrangements permitted or made for the provision, maintenance and repair of the Japanese vessels and, if so, what were they?
8.	Were there economic benefits for Canada from fishing activity by the Japanese vessels and, if so, what were they?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1.	The number of Japanese fishing vessels licensed to fish in Canadian waters and the number which actually fished is as follows:
0)
(ii)
z x 1 /e stamps;	(a) 1980	(b)	(a)	1981 (b)Wicket book	4 printings	52.5 million stamps	Licensed	Fished	Licensed	Fished(each book	Squid and	containing 25	Argentine	17	17	13	13stamps)	Tuna	87	62	106	93Total	903.7 million stamps	Pacific Hake	4 108	4 83	2 121	2 108
(d) No, due to a proposed rate change.
2.	(a) 1,190.5 million stamps.
(b)	There were 39 special issues as follows:
24 issues-sheets of one design	637.6 million	stamps12 issues-sheets of 2 designs se-tenant	428.9 million	stamps2 issues-sheets of 4 designs (checker	59.2 million	stamps
board)
1 issue-sheets of 12 designs	65.8 million stamps
Total	1,190.5 million stamps
3.	(a) 1,515 million Parliament stamps.
(b)	No.
(c)	Yes, printings have been made to meet operational needs.
(c) (i) 20 printings.
The terms and conditions of the licences can be found under section 11 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Regulations.
The size of the Japanese catch of tuna and swordfish are as follows: (M.T.)
Bigeye	Albacore Swordfish Bluefin
144.6
1981
1612.32
193.2
not yet available
167.54
160.0
(preliminary)
The size of the Japanese catch of squid, Argentine and Pacific hake are as follows: (M.T.)
Squid	Argentine	Pacific Hake
(c) (ii)
Sheet format Rolls of 100 stamps
1981
16,134.73
6,045.9
1,526.42
2,336.55
131.5
9 printings 11 printings Total
725 million stamps 790 million stamps 1,515 million stamps
(d) See 1 (d) above.
2. The swordfish caught by the Japanese vessels are taken as a bycatch of their tuna fishery in Canadian waters. The incidental catches of swordfish by Japanese vessels are marketed in Japan.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	(a) How many Japanese fishing vessels were licensed or otherwise authorized to fish in Canadian territorial waters in (i) 1980 (ii) 1981 and what were the terms and conditions of the licenses or authorities (b) how many of the vessels actually fished in Canadian territorial waters in (i) 1980 (ii) 1981 and what was the amount and size of the catch of tuna, swordfish and any other species recorded?
Their marketing of swordfish in Japan does not have an adverse effect on the Canadian swordfish industry inasmuch as Canadian swordfish does not compete in the Japanese market. As Canadian swordfish is not frozen at sea, it does not meet the product specifications required by the Japanese market.
3.	The Canadian swordfishery virtually ceased in 1971 but commenced again in the mid-1970s with the catch being

January 25, 1982
Order Paper Questions
transshipped to U.S. vessels at sea; no catch data are available for most of this time period.
The size and value of the Canadian swordfish catch is very difficult to obtain because most of the catch was transshipped at sea to U.S. vessels prior to 1981. Only estimates of total swordfish catch and their value are available for recent years.
1977	1978	1979	1980	1981Quota	-	-	3,000	3,500	3,500Total catch (M.T.)	117	3,053	2,971	1,855	345Total value	$215,999	$6,010,894	$8,149,626	$4,169,964	$608,470
(estimate)
4.	The department's Inspection and Technology Branch has had discussions with U.S. authorities in an effort to have the American mercury standard relaxed. The department has tried to convince the U.S. to change its allowable level to two parts per million. There is no immediate prospect of the standard being changed in the foreseeable future.
With respect to the Japanese market, the department discussed the possibility of swordfish exports to Japan in the most recent Canada-Japan bilateral fisheries discussions. In addition, the department has explored the possibility of over-the-side sales by Canadian swordfishermen to Japanese freezer vessels.
No steps have been taken by the department to date with respect to swordfish promotion in the Canadian market.
5.	There are no non-Canadian fishermen, other than the Japanese, authorized to catch swordfish in Canadian territorial waters. As previously indicated, swordfish is caught by the Japanese only as a bycatch to their tuna fishery in Canadian waters.
6.	(a) The department has a number of mechanisms to regulate, control and monitor the fishing activity of the Japanese vessels.
Regulatory and control mechanisms include restrictions on the fishing season, fishing gear marking regulations, area restrictions as well as quotas. With respect to quotas, there exists a 180 m.t. fleet ceiling on bluefin tuna for Japanese vessels in the Canadian zone. Once the Japanese tuna fleet attains this quota, they must leave the Canadian zone. In addition, there is a 10 per cent swordfish bycatch allowance. The terms and conditions of the licences include requirements for regularly reporting catches, bycatches, zone entries and departures and port entries and departures.
Monitoring mechanisms include sea surveillance (boardings at sea), air surveillance (sightings), observers on a proportion of the foreign vessels and port inspections.
(b) Swordfish bycatch violations were reported in 1981 for 16 Japanese vessels on which catches exceeded the 10 per cent bycatch allowance.
7.	The Department of Fisheries and Oceans' policy concerning ship repairs is to relate Japanese crew transfers in Canadian ports to an understanding that substantial repairs of Japanese vessels would take place in Canadian shipyards. In 1981,
Japanese planned crew transfers involving 1,045 people (expected expenditures by these crews in port amounted to Canadian $3.3 million) as well as repairs in Canadian shipyards for 4 vessels valued at about Canadian $2.2 million.
8.	The revenues generated by Japanese tuna longliners from September 1, 1981, to October 30, 1981, are estimated as follows:
Canadian
Port expenses	$ 1,560,000
Fishing fees	250,000
Fuel	4,543,000
Bait	1,700,000
Cash expenditures by crew in Canada	1,000,000


[Stage Direction]
The revenues generated by Japanese squid and Argentine trawlers for the 1981 season (July 1, 1981 to October 31, 1981) are estimated as follows:
Canadian
Port expenses (including fuel)	$8,835,000
Fishing fees	500,000
Crew exchanges	500,000
Ship repairs	2,200,000
[Stage Direction]
Revenues generated by Japanese vessels in the Pacific hake fishery are not yet available.
Mr. Bradley: What was the effect of the 1981 strike by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers on Post Office Department (a) revenues (b) expenses?


Gary Francis McCauley: The estimated effect of the 1981 strike by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers on Canada Post Corporation's revenues and expenses is as follows:
(a)	$158,500,000 (decrease);
(b)	$111,051,000 (decrease).


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	For each year 1978 to 1980, by province, what amount of federal funds were extended to the association known as "Canadian Parents for French"?
2.	What are the aims and objectives of the association?
3.	Is there a comparable association in French-speaking Canada, such as Canadian Parents for English, which enjoys similar support and, if so (a) what are the aims and objectives of that organization (b) were funds extended to that organization and, if so, what was the amount, by province, for each year 1978 to 1980?


Gerald Augustine Regan: 1. Federal funds accorded to Canadian Parents for French through Secretary of State Department are as follows:
January 25, 1982

National Newfoundland chapter Ontario chapter Saskatchewan chapter Alberta chapter British Columbia chapter		$ 60,958 5.000 1,130 1,830 4.000 6,200
	Total	$ 79,118
National Quebec chapter Saskatchewan chapter British Columbia chapter		$122,275 1,500 800 8,400
	Total	$132,975
National British Columbia chapter		$163,340 6,000
	Total	$169,340
Figures rounded.
2.	According to the letters patent of July 22, 1977, under which Canadian Parents for French was incorporated, the aims and objectives of the association are as follows:
"To ensure that each Canadian child has the opportunity to acquire as great a knowledge of the French language and culture as he or she is willing and able to obtain; to promote the best possible types of French language learning opportunities; to establish and maintain effective communication between interested parents and educational and governmental authorities concerned with the provision of French language learning opportunities."
3.	Not to the knowledge of the Department of Secretary of State.


Mr. Manly: 1.	What are the salary scales for counsellors in the alcohol and drug abuse program under Indian Health Services in the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	What was the estimate for expenditures for the program, nationally and by province?
3.	What amount was actually spent by the program in each of the past five years, nationally and by province?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Counsellors in the National Native Alcohol Abuse Program (NNAAP) are not public servants, and therefore, do not have a salary scale, as some 50 groups in the public service have. Salaries are established in some cases by NNAAP regional advisory board, and in others, rates of reimbursement of these workers are established by individual alcohol abuse projects. Generally, their salary ranges from $11,500 to $16,700.
2. For FY 81/82, Treasury Board authorized a total of $8,304 million for the program. This amount is subdivided into a contribution and an operating allotment, and (with the exception of salaries for the national office of the alcohol abuse program, which is charged to the Department of National Health and Welfare) is cost-shared equally between the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as per table.
Order Paper Questions
The distribution of funds to regions and the national office for FY 81/82, broken down into operating and contributions allotments is shown in table.
3.	The amount actually spent by the program in each of the past five years, nationally and by regions is as shown in table.
National Native Alcohol Abuse Program Total Funds Approved by Treasury Board
81/82
NHW	DIAND	TotalContributions	$3,475,000	$3,475,000	$6,950,000Operating	716,000	638,000	1,354,000$4,191,000	$4,113,000	$8,304,000NNAAP Program 1981	-82	Regional Distribution of Operating and	Contribution Funds	Region	Operating Contributions	Total	No. AlcoholAllocation	ProjectsAtlantic1	$ 42,344 $	547,182	$ 589,526	4N.S.	240,787	I (WholeProvince)N.B.	252,079	1 (WholeProvince)P.E.I.	54,316	2 (Reserves)Quebec	130,235	533,272	663,507	11Ontario	102,046	1,301,194	1,403,240	25Manitoba	93,500	1,064,465	1,157,965	17Saskatchewan	93,500	1,146,211	1,239,711	19Alberta	32,000	1,177,984	1,209,984	18Pacific	80,000	1,033,965	1,113,965	31N.W.T.	65,000	217,040	282,040	6Yukon	25,000	174,249	199,249	10National Office2	444,751	444,751	1	(Note: The four Atlantic provinces, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are grouped into one administrative region of the medical services branch, Department of National Health and Welfare).2	Includes $200,000 set aside for consultation with native people regarding future structures and operation of program, and some $50,000 "contingency fund" to assist regions or projects as necessary or appropriate.
National Native Alcohol Abuse Program Expenditures by Year 1976/77 to 1980/81 Nationally and by Region
1976-77	1977-78	1978-79	1979-80	1980-81Headquarters	259,109	335,812	366,126	301,763	407,563Yukon	40,242	100,414	108,652	113,992	74,786Pacific	276,268	541,974	640,044	849,410	919,050N.W.T.	97,674	125,716	108,780	140,996	176,082Alberta	644,782	664,432	936,156	896,544	1,024,554Sask.	562,740	739,874	844,300	895,556	1,048,434
January 25, 1982
Order Paper Questions
1976-77	1977-78	1978-79	1979-80	1980-81Manitoba	498,728	737,628	808,798	849,558	1,005,798Ontario	625,076	898,344	931,502	1,044,772	1,183,388Quebec	304,380	345,166	382,820	435,958	486,336Atlantic	339,966	392,198	418.476	442,428	497,466National Total	3,648,965	4,881,558	5,545,654	5,970,977	6,823,457


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Miss Jean Sattar of the health protection branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare state on October 28, 1981 or thereabouts that the branch would not determine if the drug "Inderal" could be prescribed for the prevention of heart attacks and that it would require clinical study before the drug could be advertised as useful in this regard and, if so, does the department realize (a) that the drug has been on the market in Canada for approximately one decade (b) that the drug is officially prescribed for the purpose of treating high blood pressure and heart arhythmias, but that it has been common practice in the medical profession to prescribe the drug as a beta-blocker and a preventative for heart attacks, even though the department has not allowed it to be advertised as such?
2.	Does the department intend to bring itself up to date on the use of and results of the drug and, if so, on what date?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No. The comment referred to the procedure by which data on drug studies is brought to the attention of the department (health protection branch) for evaluation, and if satisfactory for the issue to the manufacturer of a notice of compliance.
(a)	The health protection branch (HPB) issued a notice of compliance for Inderal (propanolol) for use in arhythmias in 1968, as an anti-angina drug in 1969, as an antihypertensive in 1974 and in the prophylaxis of migraine in 1979.
(b)	The name beta-blocker indicates a generic function of blockade of B-adrenergic receptors. One of these beta-blockers, Inderal, has been sold in Canada for the indications in 1(a) since the dates indicated. However, the way a physician uses a drug is governed by provincial statutes relating to medical practice. The HPB encourages submission of detailed data and will examine expeditiously any data presented to it concerning new indications.
2. The department considers itself informed on the drug.


Mr. Dantzer: In 1981 dollars what is the estimate of the cost to the government for (a) OAS payments (b) GIS payments for (i) 1986 (ii) 1991 (iii) 2001 (iv) 2011 (v) 2021 (vi) 2031 ?


Monique Bégin: All figures in 1981 dollars.
(i)	1986-$ 6,609 million
(ii)	1991-$ 7,516 million
(iii)	2001-$ 8,609 million
(iv)	2011-$ 9,765 million
(v)	2021-$12,626 million
(vi)	2031-$16,034 million
Note: Cost in constant dollars is directly proportional to growth in the over-65 population. The above figures and based upon Projection 4 in "Population Projection for Canada and the Provinces 1976-2001", Statistics Canada Catalogue 91-520 Occasional.
(b) (i) 1986-$2,347 million
(ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi)-No projection available.
The guaranteed income supplement is an income tested program. Expenditures depend on the amount of income pensioners receive from other sources. Since this income may vary greatly over time due to alterations in economic growth, interest rates and interest income, personal savings, growth in other pension plans, etc., accurate cost projections for these years are not possible.


Mr. Dantzer: 1.	(a) How many individuals currently hold registered government annuities (b) what is the total amount of the annuities and what rate of interest is being earned?
2.	Is it possible for an individual to remove his/her government annuity and place it in an annuity earning better rates of interest and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Have actions been taken to ensure that each individual's request is handled in the most satisfactory method for that individual and, if so, what were such actions?
4.	(a) On what date was the rate of interest on government annuities last changed (b) how many times since then has the rate of interest been reviewed and, of the last two times, what was the principal reason for not increasing the rate of return?
5.	Are government annuities transferable to (a) government pension plans (b) provincial government pension plans (c) para-public pension plans, such as teachers' association plans (d) private pension plans and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, for what reason?
6.	If the transfer of government annuities was possible, would it improve an individual's pension and, if so, at whose cost?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. (a) There are an estimated 228,931 individuals currently holding government annuities.
(b) On March 31, 1981, 264,270 contracts and group certificates were being administered by the Annuities Branch. Of these, 143,170 were under payment to nearly 118,500 annuitants who received a total of $92.2 million during the fiscal year 1980/81. The rate of interest is 7 per cent.
2. Yes, the branch automatically refunds the payments plus interest if the annuity is less than $10 per annum. Also, unless prohibited by a particular pension contract, the annuitant has the option of removing his/her annuity if it will be less than $120 per annum. Otherwise, section 10(1) of the Government Annuities Act and section 12 of the Government Annuities Improvement Act, forbid withdrawal by the annuitant. Section 17 of the government annuities regulations, however, permits group certificate holders who are now contributing to federal or provincial superannuation plans to transfer the value of their annuity to their new pension plan.
January 25, 1982

3.	The Annuities Branch responds to requests and inquiries in accordance with the legislation and attempts to do so in the most efficient manner possible.
4.	(a) The interest rate was last changed by the Government Annuities Improvement Act, assented to on December 20, 1975 but retroactive to April 1, 1975.
(b) The interest rate has been reviewed twice since 1975. In both cases, the government decided that no increase in the rate of return would be allowed. The reasons for the decision were explained to the House at the time (Hansard, at p. 2230 on June 18, 1980 and at pp. 10972 and 10973 on June 25, 1981).
5.	As stated in the reply to question No. 2, only certain group annuity certificates are transferable.
(a)	Yes
(b)	Yes
(c)	No
(d)	No
(i) and (ii) All of the above are governed by section 17 of
the government annuities regulations.
6.	If the holder of a Canadian Government Annuity contract (or group certificate) could transfer the funds supporting that contract to another insurer, the value of the annuity to which he would then become intitled would depend upon the rate of return paid by the other insurer, the actuarial basis on which that insurer worked, and the number of years to maturity of the contract at the time of transfer. Depending upon the type of contract, it is possible, in present money market conditions, that the amount of annuity paid would increase.
Such transfers, were they to be allowed, would be charges to the government annuities account within the Consolidated Revenue Fund. At this time, the replacement of such funds would result in increased costs to the taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. Fretz: 1.	How many joint ventures of the Canadian International Development Agency's industrial co-operation project were entered into with (a) Canadian companies and, in each case, which company (b) state companies and, in each case, which company (c) individual countries and, by continent, which countries?
2. Since the beginning of the project, how many studies on trade and socio-economic conditions were conducted and, in each case (a) by which consulting firm (b) in which country?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs):
1.	(a) Twenty-eight.
Reliable Toy Limited DU-AL Blocks Limited McMillan Bloedel Limited B.C. Packers Limited
Canada Wire and Cable/Les Cables Canada Microsystems International Limited
___________________________________14281
Order Paper Questions Inserven Canada Inc.
Recuperation Val-Argent (RVA) Ltee Connaught Laboratories Limited Seajay Management Enterprises Limited Crestwood Kitchens Petro-Sun Inc. (Thermo-Solar Division)
Donson Engineering Limited Carrhart Overseas Limited Sabre Saw Chain Limited King Grain Limited Okanagan Helicopters Limited Electrohome Limited/Limitee Agrodev Canada Inc.
Seadev International Limited
Don Bere Limited
Canidad (International) Limited
Seacan Development Limited
Shawinigan Engineering Company Limited
Systemhouse Limited
Citra-Mix Limited
Dykins Industries Limited
Hargrave Security Service Canada Limited
(b)	None.
(c)	Twenty-two.
Africa	North and Central America
Cameroon	Argentina
Ivory Coast	Chile
Egypt	Guatemala
Kenya	Haiti
Morocco	Jamaica
Nigeria	Panama
Asia	St. Kitts Trinidad and Tobago
India Indonesia Iran Pakistan Philippines Malaysia Singapore Thailand Fourteen. (a) Company	(b) Country
Dr. Michel Seruya	Bolivia/Ecuador
ICSG/MCS*	Indonesia

January 25, 1982
Order Paper Questions Sores Inc.	Egypt
Econotech Ltee	Cameroon
Manitoba Institute of Management, Barbados Johnson Lowe & Associates Limited, Zimbabwe Econotech Ltee	Morocco
Projecto International Inc., Gabon Corere Consultants Limited, Mexico Delcanda International Limited, Mexico Delcanda International Limited, Mexico Interimco International Inc., Mexico Institutional Consultants (International) Limited, Mexico
Bureau de Transport-Montreal, Mexico *ICSG- Industrial Cooperation Survey Group.
MCS- Montreal Engineering Company Limited, Canadian Pacific Consulting Services Limited, Swan Wooster Engineering Company Limited.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	-To the knowledge of the government, are hundreds of cases of eggs coming into the Ottawa area each month from the state of Minnesota in the United States for sale to Ottawa area hospitals as well as certain other institutions and, if so (a) for what reason do eggs have to be imported from Minnesota when there has been a surplus of eggs in Canada in recent years (b) was this brought about by any regulations of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency or by any other actions of the government?
2.	Are egg distributors required to apply for import permits when surplus eggs are available in the immediate area and, if so, for what reason?
3.	What is the retail cost in Canadian funds for a dozen eggs imported in this fashion at the time (a) this question is asked (b) the answer to this question is prepared?
4.	Does the government consider this to be a ridiculous situation and, if so, will it take steps to remedy it?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a certain traditional level of imports are allowed. This is established at .675 percent of last year's level of production. Egg imports are coming into Canada all year round. Traditionally, the volume rises with the increase in demand at Easter and Christmas. Supplementary permits will be issued to import more than the traditional amounts when it can be demonstrated that a Canadian supply is not available. The traditional import levels are about 200,000 boxes of 15 dozen with supplementaries raising this to 700,000 boxes during years of balanced supply. This year these imports are much lower, just over 200,000 boxes of 15 dozen to the end of October, 1981, which is about the minimum under GATT. Once the eggs have been received by the importer they lose visibility with respect to where they are marketed through the wholesale and retail chain. It is known, however, that some imported eggs are on sale in the Ottawa area.
2.	No.
3.	The retail costs associated with handling and processing eggs through the private sector wholesale-retail trade is not known. These areas of cost are not monitored under the supply management program for eggs.
4.	The level of imports of eggs into Canada this year has been kept to the bare minimum under the GATT. No special action is required or possible by the government.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. Percy Jodoin, Director of Immigration at the port of Lansdowne, Ontario, retire in September, 1981 or thereabouts and, if so (a) is his position now vacant (b) will the position be filled and, if so, on what date?
2.	Is the government considering placing immigration at the port of Lansdowne under one of the adjacent ports at Prescott, Ontario or at Kingston, Ontario and, if so, what would be the reasons for choosing (a) Prescott (b) Kingston?
3.	(a) Is the government aware that the port falls within the united counties of Leeds and Grenville, a geographically historical district (b) would placing the port under Kingston, which is far outside the boundaries of Leeds-Grenville, mean the same level of service could not be provided as in the past?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. Yes. Mr. Percy Jodoin, manager of the Canada Immigration Centre at Lansdowne retired in September, 1981.
(a)	Yes.
(b)	As part of its operational planning for 1982-83 and beyond, Ontario region is presently examining the organizational configuration of the Ottawa district in which the Lansdowne port of entry is located. A final recommendation has not yet been formulated.
2.	See 1 (b) above.
3.	(a) Yes.
(b) No; service to the public is always a prime consideration in resource allocation and operational planning.


Mr. Herbert: Was a study made of possible cost savings to the public resulting from the use of generic drugs and, if so, was the report made public ?


Yvon Pinard: Yes, a study was done by the Economic Council of Canada and published in May, 1981 as a technical report. The study is entitled: "Regulating the Price of Prescription Drugs in Canada: Compulsory Licensing, Product Selection, and Government Reimbursement Programmes", by Paul K. Gorecki.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, by province, what amount was paid under the Municipal Grants Act?


Paul James Cosgrove: January 25, 1982

Federal Fiscal Years
PROVINCE	1976-77	1977-78	1978-79	1979-80	1980-81$	$	$	$	SNewfoundland	661,641	1,041,466	1,764,752	1,483,197	1,677,583Prince Edward Island	306,645	713,568	410,000	570,574	465.000Nova Scotia	5,008,572	7,153,085	6,475,684	6,897,501	8,186,486New Brunswick	3,398,646	4,750,000	4,606,975	4.562,247	6,915,000Quebec	16,891,272	23,737,817	35,995,319	26,594,134	34,570.989Ontario	42,541,639	53,627,471	55,990,179	60,116,415	69,814,323Manitoba	5,623,157	7,928,811	7,246,629	7,414,466	7,703,697Saskatchewan	2,473,352	3,056,338	3,106,275	3,345,567	3,865,653Alberta	5,708,658	7,007,370	8,508,473	8,331,145	8,219,637British Columbia	8,858,273	13,069,507	11,295,346	13,064,399	12,678,815Yukon	494,375	523,581	536,794	771,929	708,945Northwest Territories	1,032,934	887,342	1,042,415	1,165,689	1,183,638Totals	92,999,164	123,496,356	136,978,841	134,317,163	155,989,766


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Under what authority did the government proceed with setting up a civilian security service to replace the RCMP security service before the McDonald commission report and its recommendations were debated in Parliament?
2.	Is it government policy to make major changes in the operation of any department or service without the approval of Parliament and is this policy consistent with the democratic process and, if so, in what way?


Yvon Pinard: 1.
Although the government has decided to establish a civilian security-intelligence agency, it has not yet given effect to its decision. It has, on receipt and examination of the recommendations of the McDonald commission, accepted the recommendation that a civilian security service be established, and has set up a planning and transitional group to develop proposals for implementing the decision and to develop the necessary organizational and administrative arrangements. The government anticipates that the legislative proposals which will be submitted to Parliament in due course will give rise to constructive debate both in Parliament and among the public.
2. Not applicable (see reply to part 1).


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	What was Canada's contribution to food aid for Third World and developing countries for (a) 1980 (b) the first six months of 1981?
2.	To which countries were contributions made and, in each case (a) what food products were contributed and at what dollar value (b) what was the (i) administrative cost (ii) distribution cost (iii) value of the food product?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. (a) FY 1980-81: $180,121,932.
(b) FY 1981-82: Food aid contributions are made on a fiscal year basis. Because separate memoranda of understanding must be negotiated with each country receiving bilateral food aid, shipments in the first six months of the fiscal year tend to be less than in the last six
Order Paper Questions
months. The approved food aid allocation for FY 1981-82 is $231.5 million. The actual amount shipped as of Oct. 1, 1981 was $104,538,062.59.
2. The first table outlines the recipients (bilateral, multilateral and Canadian NGOs), of food products and the dollar value of shipments made under the 1980-81 Canadian food aid program.
The second table outlines the proposed recipients and food products for the 1981-82 Canadian food aid program.
Administrative costs for the food aid program are covered in two ways:
(a)	from the C1DA administrative vote-internal administrative costs for any particular program are not broken out;
(b)	from the purchase cost of the commodity-food is purchased on a "free alongside" (FAS) basis. The cost per ton covers all administrative costs, including packaging and inland transportation costs to the dockside. The transportation cost covers all shipping charges (plus overseas inland transportation if needed) and the cost of superintending the loading and
unloading.	FY 1980/81	Food Aid Progra	m	Country or	Cost of	Cost of	TotalProgram	Commodity	Commodity	Transportation	CostBilateral Grant	Ethiopia	Wheat	2,836,400	1,104,400	3,940,800Mozambique	Wheat	1,044,630	435,467	1.480,097Mozambique	Bulk corn	1,121,244	866,240	1,987,484Somalia	Flour	2,145,728	698,728	2,844,456Sudan	Flour	1,080,956	402,113	1,483,069Tanzania	Wheat	2,251,758	722,881	2,974,639Zimbabwe	Rapesced oil	2,459,129	477.512	2,936,641Bangladesh	Wheat	29,602,049	9,720,606	39.322,655India	Rapesced oil	2,217,424	746,895	2,964,319Nepal	Cash grant	250,000Mauritania	Wheal	790,608	206,110	996,718Rwanda	Milk powder	651,564	298,817	950,381Senegal	Wheat	1,385,770	478,095	1,863,865Senegal	Corn	3,603,370	1,034,152	4,637,522Zaire	Fish	2,274,300	212,296	2,486,596Jamaica	Fish	2,486,393	2,486,393Total Bilateral Program	73,805,635Multilateral	World Food Program United Nations	Various	83,843,048	10,000,000	93,843,048Relief & Works Agency	Flour	2,507,297	994,051	3,501,348International	Wheat	Emergency	(Senegal)	1,055,421	Food Reserve	Com (Mali)	1,553,672	2,863,259	5,472,352Total Multilateral Program	102,816,748Special Programs	Non-governmental organizations Mennonite central	Milk powder	1,999,549committee food bank	Wheat	1,500,000Total Special Programs	3,499,549Total 1980/81 food aid program	180,121,932
January 25, 1982
Order Paper Questions
FY 1	981/82 Food Aid Program	FY 1981/82Country or Program	Commodity	AllocationBilateral Grant	Bangladesh	Wheal	$ 30.0 MChina	Wheat	2.0India	Rapeseed Oil	9.0Pakistan	Wheat	2.0Sri Lanka	Wheat	6.0Ethiopia	Wheat	5.0Mozambique	Wheat	3.0Somalia	Rapeseed Oil & Flour	5.0Tanzania	Wheat	4.0Kenya	Wheat	3.0Uganda	Soy Oil & Skim Milk Powder	2.0Mauritania	Skim Milk Powder	1.5Mali	Corn	2.0Rwanda	Flour	2.0Senegal	Wheat	2.0Sudan	Wheat	4.0Upper Volta	Wheat Flour	2.0Zaire	Fish	3.0Nicaragua	Wheat	4.5Peru	Wheat	2.5Not yet allocated	0.5Food sector strategies Carryover charges from	N/A	1.01980/81 food aid program Total Bilateral Program- Grant	0.5 $ 96.5 MMultilateral	Non-grain (fish, vegetable oil	World Food Program (W FP)	skim milk powder, pulses)	15.0Grain (wheat. Hour, corn) Cash (contribution to	72.0transportation)	10.0Total WFP	97.0UN Relief & Works Agency	for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA)	Wheat Hour	4.5Total multilateral program	$101.5 MSpecial Programs	Non-Governmental	Organizations Mennonile Central	Milk powder	2.0Committee Food Bank Reserve for Emergency	Wheal	1.4Contributions	Various	0.1Total Special Programs Additional funds to be	$ 3.5 Mallocated	Various	$ 30.0 MTotal FY 1981-82 food aid	program	$231.5 M


Mr. Herbert: 1.	On what date is the indexing of public service pensions operative?
2.	What is the basis for the calculation of the indexing?
3.	What is the percentage of indexing for 1982?


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: 1. January 1 of each year.
2.	The formula for the pension escalation is set out in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. The pension increase payable to a retired public servant in any year is based on the ratio of the benefit index for that year to the benefit index for the year of retirement.
The benefit index for each year is, in turn, determined by multiplying the benefit index for the preceding year by the ratio of the pension index for that year to the pension index of the preceding year.
The pension index for any year is equal to the average of the consumer price index over the period from October to September of the previous year. Thus, the pension index for 1982 equals the average of the consumer price index from October, 1980 to September, 1981.
3.	The percentage payable in 1982 to those who are already retired will be 12.2 per cent.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Department of Finance prepare forecasts of the size of the gross federal debt for the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 (c) 1983-84 (d) 1984-85 (e) 1985-86 and, if so, what was it?
2.	Did Table 1.2 of the document "Budget in More Detail" only provide estimates of the size of the net federal debt and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: 1 and
2. Net public debt is considered a more useful summary measure of government indebtedness; its increase reflects the budgetary deficit. The gross public debt is inherently subject to additional elements of variability. It is influenced by the specifics of the borrowing program which the government does not plan at a detailed level over the multi-year period of the budget plan.


Mr. Flis: 1.	How many staff work for the Canadian International Development Agency and how many work in (a) Ottawa (b) countries where the agency gives aid?
2.	What are the total salaries for staff who work (a) in Ottawa (b) outside Canada?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. For the fiscal year 1981-82, the Canadian International Development Agency has, as of November 30, 1981, a person-year authorization of 1,057 (which includes 11 person-years from the Office of the Comptroller General), as follows:
(a)	In Ottawa/Hull area	1.003
(b)	In countries where CIDA provides
development assistance	54
1,057
2. For the fiscal year 1981-82, salary costs (including overtime and other personnel costs) are estimated at $32,400,000, as follows:

(a)	In Ottawa/Hull area	$29,209,000(b)	In	countries where Cl DA providesdevelopment assistance	3,191,000


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources recently state "We have a little bit of a tendency in Canada just to run scared the moment some official says "Boo" in the United States"?
2.	Was he enunciating government policy and, if so, on what date did the government arrive at such a policy and what are all the details?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: See reply to question No. 3,312 answered December 15, 1981.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did liic Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources recently state "We should not take to the woods every time somebody coughs in Washington"?
2.	Was he enunciating government policy and, if so, on what date did the government arrive at such a policy and what are all the details?


Marc Lalonde: See reply to question No. 3,313 answered December 15, 1981.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 2,665 and 2,779 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Does the House agree that questions Nos. 2665 and 2779 be made orders for returns?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gilchrist: 1.	For each year 1970 to 1980, what was the dollar value of exports of (a) manufactured goods (b) resource exports?
2.	For the same period, what was the net surplus or deficit over imported manufactured goods?
3.	For the same period, what were the national productivity figures and the national plant capacity utilization figures?
Adjournment Motion
Return tabled.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names and addresses of all persons employed in any capacity for the 1981 Census in the Constituency of Leeds-Grenville and, in each case, what was the amount of remuneration received?
Return tabled.
V *	*


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 3,471?


Mr. McKenzie: As of November 23, 1981, how many (a) veterans (b) veterans in each province and territory receive care and/or benefits under the Department of Veterans Affairs home-support program?


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, the answer to the question, part (a), is 92; part (b), Newfoundland, 2; Prince Edward Island, 1; Nova Scotia, 11; New Brunswick, 2; Quebec, 1; Ontario, 20; Manitoba, 3; Saskatchewan, 3; Alberta, 10; Northwest Territories, 0; Yukon, 0; British Columbia, 39, for a total of 92.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Madam 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 Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-Housing-Projected rental increases in Ottawa region; the hon. member for Surrey-White

January 25, 1982
Canagrex Act
Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Penitentiaries-Information on released prisoners given to Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (b) Nature of information; the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Administration of Justice-Request for inquiry into payment made to convicted murderer, Clifford Olson-Suggested recovery of funds.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Eugene Whelan: that Bill C-85, to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne opening this session of Parliament it was said that food and agriculture were going to be increasingly important to the Canadian economy in the 1980s. That forecast is certainly coming true, probably quicker than many of us realize. Food was a major item on the agenda of the Ottawa Summit last summer, the Commonwealth Conference in Melbourne, and the North-South Conference at Cancun. 1 have personally attended two major world conferences dealing with food recently-the ministerial meeting of the World Food Council in Novi Sad, Yugoslavia, in May, and the biennial conference of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome in November.
In one sense the introduction of this legislation into the chamber is the culmination of a dream I have had for a long time. Before coming to the House of Commons, the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) was a strong promoter of such an organization. It is no secret that I have pushed for a Crown corporation to promote agricultural exports at every opportunity. 1 am sure that many other hon. members in the House share that dream, and I am confident that the legislation will not run into any roadblocks along the way. However, in another sense this is just the beginning. Getting Canagrex established and at work on behalf of the Canadian agri-food industry is merely the first step along the road to improving Canada's very important food trade picture. Canada needs such a corporation, and I am convinced that a few years down the road we will look back and wonder how we got along without it for so long.
Canada is a trading nation. Our livelihood depends upon it. That was emphasized in the chamber recently when we passed the Meat Import Act. It is re-emphasized by the enthusiasm of all hon. members every time a new sale of grains or oilseeds is announced. Matters affecting international trade probably take up more time in the House than any other single item.
The importance of trade was stressed in the recent cabinet reorganization announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The fact that all parties co-operated to allow unanimous approval to introduce the Canagrex bill for first reading before Christmas is further evidence of the high priority we all accord to trade policies and programs.
A number of Canadian companies and agencies have worked successfully in the international marketplace; the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission, for example. Several provincial hog boards have moved aggressively in the export field. About 20 per cent of the nation's pork production has been exported in recent years. In 1980 we shipped 166 million pounds of pork to the United States of America and 70.2 million pounds to Japan. Canada was the largest single supplier of pork to Japan in 1980. The Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board and the British Columbia Tree Fruit Marketing Board are other examples of organizations which have successfully developed export markets. All those agencies and companies which have successfully marketed Canadian agriculture and food products in the past are to be congratulated. They are doing a good job for Canada. Together they exported $7.8 billion worth of products and earned Canada an agricultural trade surplus of $2.7 billion in 1980. The final figures are not in yet, but agricultural exports in 1981 are expected to exceed imports by between $2.5 billion and $2.75 billion. Hardly any other nation in the world can make the claim that it has a net trade balance in food; Canada is one of them.
However, we produce a great variety of food in the country which is not being offered aggressively in the international marketplace. It is fair to say that Canadians still do a better job at production than at sales. When it comes to food that is ready to eat, processed food, as opposed to agricultural products, we are in a trade deficit position of some $300 million. Some people put it much higher, but surely to goodness they do not expect us to produce grapefruit, oranges, bananas, spices, etc.


Mr. Epp:: I thought you did.


Eugene Whelan: Manitoba is probably doing better than the hon. member realizes. He probably does not realize what is going on around him. Turning that deficit around is one of the jobs I and many other people who supported the principle of Canagrex see that organization accomplishing. Many of the food manufacturing firms and commodity marketing boards are small and are unfamiliar with the complexities of the international marketplace. For them Canagrex can serve as a source of expert advice. Even more than that, it can become a partner, helping to arrange financing and sharing the risk in joint ventures. In some cases, where opportunity exists and is not being exploited, Canagrex may act on its own to buy and sell agricultural and food products.
Another area where I see Canagrex playing an important role, Mr. Speaker, is in the government to government trade
January 25, 1982

deals which are becoming more and more common, particularly as the Third World and socialist bloc countries become more involved in world trade. Many of those countries handle all their trade through state-trading agencies. They prefer to deal with Canada through a central agency. Even those countries not considered poor, such as the OPEC members, have no hope of being self-sufficient in food in the near future, so they will be in the market for high quality food products for many years to come. They have made no secret about their desire to deal directly with us, and no secret about their unwillingness to deal with some of the huge multinationals.
An example of that occurred last February when Canada signed the $100 million long-term trade deal with Mexico. The state agency handling the sale for Mexico was Conasupo, an agency which has existed for at least ten years, with powers that possibly Canagrex does not have but which were necessary in that country to provide food for about 25 million people in the lower-income or poverty class at reasonable prices. In the future such deals might be handled with Canagrex acting as the umbrella organization for Canadian firms dealing with Conasupo.
Canagrex will have the dual role, Mr. Speaker, of promoting Canadian goods abroad and of promoting within Canada the importance of trade. One problem that Canada has had in the international market is a tendency on the part of some producer organizations to think of export markets as a way of getting rid of surpluses. It is not uncommon to hear it said in government circles and other places that we should perhaps have special legislation just to sell surpluses. However, Mr. Speaker, the one thing we have to remember is that people do not eat just when we have surpluses; they eat 365 days a year. It therefore follows that there should be long-term contracts to guarantee them a steady supply of high quality Canadian food products. I would suggest a minimum term of five years, possibly even longer, ten or 15 years, similar to coal contracts in Alberta or British Columbia. Some of those coal contracts run for 15 years, which is a form of supply-management if I ever saw one. In these contracts their cost increases are guaranteed, and they start negotiating several years before their contracts run out so they can phase out their production. I asked them why they did this and they said that because of the tremendous capital invested they could not operate in any other way.
So, Mr. Speaker, when one measures the tremendous capital the agricultural industry has invested here in Canada, the individual farmer's investment in land and equipment, it is obvious that the investment has to be utilized.
As I said earlier here today, agriculture with its associated industries is the biggest employer in Canada. Let no one forget that: the biggest single employer. What we are saying with Canagrex is that we can make it an even bigger and more important one. Canada would not be able to establish, for instance, the kind of market we want if we are just going to sell when we have surpluses. I have seen it so often, as a minister, as a backbencher and before that in farm organiza-
Canagrex Act
tions when everyone was striving to make a fast buck with a quick sale of a surplus product somewhere in the world. We have looked for an export market when we had a surplus to dispose of, and ignored it when the domestic market was large enough to handle all our production.
Canada will not be able to establish itself as a serious trading nation with such an attitude. Countries interested in buying Canadian produce will be looking for continuity of supply and that is what we want, because it will mean Canadian producers will have a steady market and a steady income, which is what most of the farmers that I talk to want. I know that if we offer that kind of incentive to the farmers, all you will have to do, Mr. Speaker, is just watch them go.
As I said last February when the cabinet first gave approval to the idea of Canagrex, the agency's job will be to increase the volume and variety of sales of Canadian agricultural and food products. That will mean increased income for farmers and a shot in the arm for the whole economy. It will not be wasting time as we have done in the House today, because Canagrex cannot work if we are going to have that kind of operation.


Walter David Baker: That was by the NDP.


Eugene Whelan: Agricultural exports are vital to the prosperity of the Canadian food and agriculture sector. Traditionally, agricultural exports have made up 40 to 45 per cent of farm cash receipts. Practically no other country is as dependent on exports as we are.
Canagrex will help to expand Canadian food production and processing, and this will provide many new jobs in an industry which is already one of the nation's largest employers, if not the largest.
As you can see from the legislation, Canagrex will run a tight ship. It will not be a big bureaucracy, as some people have suggested. It will be run by a board of 11 directors reporting to the Minister of Agriculture, seven of whom will be appointed from outside the federal public service, and they will be well qualified to deal in agricultural trade matters.
There will also be a policy advisory committee made up of representatives from provincial governments, the business community and farm organizations which will advise me on all matters associated with market development strategy. The working officers will be a president and two vice-presidents who will be hired to administer Canagrex under the direction of the board of directors.
Hon. members will recognize that to be fully effective and to achieve its objection of reinforcing the export capabilities of the food and agricultural sector, the corporation must have wide-ranging powers. These include the ability to make contracts, enter into joint ventures, provide grants and contributions, give loans and guarantees, hold property and, if necessary, purchase, process, package and export food products. It will be able to charge for its services, and the projects it undertakes are expected to be economically viable.

January 25, 1982
Canagrex Act
The bill also provides for Canagrex to be funded annually from money appropriated by Parliament. It will not engage in paying direct subsidies on a product to either producers or processors, nor will it deal in products under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian Dairy Commission unless it is invited to do so. In that way, Mr. Speaker, it will not duplicate the efforts of other Crown agencies.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Eugene Whelan: As I was saying when we adjourned at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, Canagrex must have wide-ranging powers to enable it to do the job we want it to do. That includes the ability to make contracts, enter into joint ventures, provide grants and contributions, give loans and guarantees, hold property and, if necessary, purchase, process, package and export food products. Canagrex will be able to charge for its services, and the projects it will undertake are expected to be economically viable.
The bill also provides for Canagrex to be funded annually from money appropriated by Parliament. It will not engage in paying direct subsidies on a product to either producers or processors, nor will it deal in products under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian Dairy Commission unless invited to do so. That is to avoid duplication of the efforts of other Crown agencies.
Canagrex will co-operate with and use existing programs and activities of the federal government wherever appropriate. I will report annually to Parliament on the operations of Canagrex and will table a summary of its annual capital budget.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, breaks new ground in that it requires the management of Canagrex to prepare annually a three-year corporate plan spelling out its proposed activities.
I have spent a lot of time, Mr. Speaker, these past few months discussing with the agriculture and food sector a long-term strategy for the development of an agri-food industry that will keep Canada in the lead in this industry for the remainder of this century. It is an exciting prospect, one which has generated a lot of interest among all sectors of the industry in Canada, from primary producer to consumer.
From the very beginning I have emphasized-and the agrifood strategy document, "Challenge for Growth", repeats this-that market development is the spark which will give life to the strategy. It must be clear to everyone that production
without a market is not only a waste of food but is an invitation to financial ruin for the producer.
We cannot just produce and pile it up and hope to God that someone is going to buy it at a fair price. Too often in the past we have seen farmers produce a big crop of an excellent quality product, whether it be from the fields or in the livestock industry, only to sell it in the world market below the cost of production. That is what is happening in the red meat industry in Canada today. Some of this product is going to countries which can well afford to pay a decent price, countries such as the United States of America and Japan. Some of it is going to other countries such as the U.S.S.R. where they can send people into space but cannot feed themselves. There is no reason in the world why we should subsidize them simply because we are efficient and produce surplus only to sell it into their markets below the cost of production. 1 sometimes wonder why farmers would ever want to produce anything under those circumstances.
So, Mr. Speaker, Canagrex is a very important part of the agri-food strategy because it is one of the ways by which we will achieve market development on which the industry's future depends. In fact, I am convinced we will not be able to open up the necessary markets for food which Canada is ideally situated to supply unless we have a Crown corporation such as Canagrex to represent Canada in the world market place.
I know I can count on the support of this chamber to give swift approval to this bill so that we can take this next important step in the development of the agriculture and food industry. I know I can count on members of the opposition to make short, precise and constructive speeches. Perhaps we can even pass the bill in its entirety this evening, give it second and third reading, and away we go! We can have it in operation, and our farmers could be signing contracts before spring begins.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome this opportunity to enter the debate this evening following the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I welcome the opportunity to make some comments on Bill C-85 which, of course, establishes the Crown corporation of Canagrex. 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. The minister may doubt this, but it was brought to our attention back in 1973 by my colleague, the hon. member who still represents the riding of Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton).
January 25, 1982

However, as we are aware, on February 20, 1981, nearly a year ago, the Minister of Agriculture announced that the cabinet had given approval for the establishment of the agriculture export corporation, Canagrex. As the minister said, "Cabinet has given the green light for the creation of Canagrex". It was announced on February 20, 1981. If it took ten months for the green light, then it is no wonder that the workings of this government have been compared to a traffic jam, because we know that there is a great deal of commotion and a great deal of horn sounding in a traffic jam, but there is virtually little or no forward movement. However, this is really the history and the record of this government, particularly when it comes to dealing with the agricultural industry, which is the most important and most vital industry not only in Canada but of course in other countries as well.
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.
The rationale given for Canagrex is that many of Canada's smaller agri-businesses and farm organizations lack the expertise, knowledge and indeed the financial resources to be aggressive and effective as export marketers. Canagrex would, therefore, become directly involved in joint ventures with agricultural exporters by providing loans and guarantees.
Certainly, priority must be given to increasing our agricultural exports. I am sure the minister is very much aware of this. Although Canada has traditionally had a food trade surplus, this surplus has largely been an illusion. It is dependent on the variations of the world grain market and the world grain trade. However, when grain sales are removed or omitted from our agricultural trade calculations, we find that Canada has been suffering from an even worsening food trade deficit. This deficit has increased from an average of about $449 billion some 12 years ago in 1970, to a deficit of $1.9 billion in 1979.
We must work very hard and diligently to reduce this deficit. Increasing our agricultural exports, of course, is one way; decreasing our imports of food which can be successfully and economically grown here in Canada is naturally another. It is estimated that Canada imports about $3 billion worth of agricultural products which could be grown here in Canada, products such as apples, fresh vegetables, oil seeds, soybeans, and oats for milling and breakfast cereal, to name but a few. The government must develop new policies which will encourage import replacement.
I know that there are a great many pros and cons to an agricultural export corporation. I am anxious that the merits of Canagrex be fully discussed in committee. In committee and indeed during debate in the House, my colleagues and I will try to find out whether Canagrex is the best method of increasing our agricultural exports.
Canagrex Act
One of the major problems facing Canagrex will be its effectiveness in views of its very limited budget and staff. In his original proposal, the Minister of Agriculture set out what he thought should be the minimum standards of Canagrex. These minimum standards consisted of a budget of $62.3 million and a staff of between 125 and 175 people. These figures were taken from the minister's announcement. I would say that today we are a little short on funds and long on staff. However, as with so many of the minister's proposals, he failed to manoeuvre these minimum standards which he had established on February 20, 1981, through cabinet. In his February 20 statement, the minister reported that cabinet had approved a budget for Canagrex, not one of $62 million but rather one of $12.3 million, that is $50 million less than what the minister thought was necessary, and that this money had to be spread over a period of three years. Therefore, on an annual basis for the next three years, provided the bill receives approval, the corporation will receive a budget, not of $62.3 million but rather of $4.1 million.
Concerning staffing, the cabinet approved a staff of 12. Again that amounts to 163 people fewer than what the minister set out in his minimum standards. I suppose that if we wanted to be critical of the minister and, after all, he is the Minister of Agriculture and must assume and accept the responsibilities, we could say that at least the minister continues to be successful at failing to get whatever measures he wants through the cabinet intact.
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. Again, in committee, my colleagues and I will want to know whether Canagrex might not serve a more useful purpose by being part of the minister's own department, by being a division within Agriculture Canada, rather than another Crown corporation. I do not know. I suppose it would be a fair question to ask the minister if he could tell me now just how many Crown corporations are owned by the government. I know there has been some difficulty in the past with one minister saying there are 185 Crown corporations and someone else contradicting him. If Canagrex receives approval, I just wonder how many Crown corporations will fall under the jurisdiction of the government.
We will also want to be very careful that Canagrex does not repeat the marketing miscalculations of the Canadian Dairy Commission, because David Kates, the deputy chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, and Mr. Justice Hugh Gibson of the federal court of Canada have found, in two separate reports, that there is almost no limit to the potential for ill-advised government intervention for which there is practically no mechanism for accountability. That is a pretty damning statement. The Canadian Dairy Commission has done an excellent job for producers and consumers over the years and has been very effective in the export market field. These revelations could hardly come at a worse time. With the federal government's dairy policy review hanging over the

January 25, 1982
Canagrex Act
heads of Canadian dairy farmers, it could add powerful ammunition to those people in the bureaucracy and those in Treasury Board. Because of the delay, I am convinced there must be some reluctance on the part of some cabinet colleagues of the Minister of Agriculture. They must be opposing the national dairy policy. We have to see what cabinet did to the Canagrex budget and staff. If this same mentality or feeling applies, I hate to think what it could do to the national dairy policy.
If Canagrex is to be enacted, we have to make sure the government has learned from its mistakes. Bill C-85 must not contain provisions which will allow for the abuse of intervention and the abuse of power.
There are other questions regarding Canagrex which have to be answered. It is appropriate that a number of questions be raised, questions such as the role of Canagrex in the Canadian export business. Will it act in support of or in competition with existing Canadian exporters? There will be the determination of how to allocate a sale. If a market is found for a particular commodity or product, who determines the sale and which company or farm group is given the opportunity to supply the goods?
How do we ensure the board of directors of Canagrex is composed of qualified people? These people are not around the country in great numbers. It is extremely important that we secure well-qualified people, people who are ready to work and are capable of taking appropriate action, and not just create another government body which the government can utilize as an opportunity to pass out some political patronage.


Eugene Whelan: Lord save us from that.


John Wise: The reporting relationship with Agriculture Canada is extremely important. As I indicated earlier, our concept of Canagrex is that it would not necessarily be a Crown corporation, although there may be some problems associated with that.
There is also the reporting relationship with Industry, Trade and Commerce. I could probably add External Affairs when we are dealing in the export market. Canagrex will have a very limited staff. Therefore, co-operation among these three departments will be extremely important.
Canagrex will by necessity be dependent upon the co-operation of these three departments. As a result, we must examine the willingness of these departments to co-operate and share their resources with Canagrex. The minister did not indicate this, but perhaps others who follow him will. I understand a number of his colleagues want to comment on Canagrex. Perhaps they will answer the question of how it will fit in with the latest reorganization that has taken place between Industry, Trade and Commerce and External Affairs.
There is also the question of whether there ought to be a separate Crown corpporation to look after agricultural exports or whether this body, as I indicated, might well do the job
being a branch or division within the minister's department, Agriculture Canada.
I would have thought the government might have tried to improve other more basic needs of agricultural exports in the absence of the corporation. One of these basic needs, of course, is the dissemination of information and material. It has always amazed me that a country such as Canada which has 115 embassies and trade offices or consulates abroad has an agriculturalist specialist on staff in only ten. Of these ten, only one is in a Third World country, India, despite the fact that in 1980 nearly 25 per cent of our agricultural exports went to the Third World.
Because of the low representation abroad, Canadian exporters have suffered when it came to finding and defining export opportunities. It is extremely difficult for a person not completely familiar with the fundamentals of agriculture to assess the agricultural needs of a foreign country and to be aware of whether Canadian firms can supply these services or products.
The government can also encourage exporters through information availability. I am aware that Agriculture Canada has sponsored several seminars for agricultural exporters, people in the agri-food industry, and the bankers. These seminars should provide an opportunity for exporters to learn more about sources of financing, export credit, insurance services and market information.
I hope the minister will make certain that these export seminars continue, that they will involve a broad cross-section of agricultural producers and that they will be held in all regions of this country.
I hope that Bill C-85 does not mark the end of this government's attention to agriculture. It has always seemed that this government can only find the time to deal with one major agricultural bill per year. Last year, 1981, it was the meat import law. This year, 1982, it is Canagrex. Canadian agriculture deserves better priority and attention than it has received from this government. The agricultural industry is suffering deeply as a result of this government's high interest rate policy. The latest is the devastating budget that the minister's colleague brought forward on November 12 which adversely affects farmers.
Where are the government measures designed to deal with this economic crisis? Where is the long-promised legislation which would allow the Farm Credit Corporation to borrow supplementary funds from the private marketplace? The Minister of Agriculture has been promising such legislation for over a year. I am being fairly complimentary when I say a year. On second thought, it might be as many as five years.
If such legislation had been enacted last year or a couple of years ago, many Canadian farmers might still be in business today. Last year, 261 farmers declared bankruptcy. Untold hundreds more were forced out of business through foreclosures and forced sales. These heavy losses are a real threat to our future food security. The government should be doing its utmost to reverse this very serious trend.
January 25, 1982

Unfortunately, the government has done virtually nothing. In fact, it has helped to make matters worse by bringing down one of the most disastrous budgets on record. The budget and its many changes have again demonstrated that this government simply does not know what it is doing. On the one hand there is the Minister of Agriculture encouraging farmers to stay in business for the good of Canada and Canadians. On the other hand, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) which penalizes very seriously the retirement income of farmers who have worked a lifetime providing the food requirements for Canadians and many other hundreds of thousands of people beyond our borders. The Minister of Finance brought in a budget making unfair tax changes to the income-averaging annuity contracts and to the capital gains tax reserves. Also, the Minister of Agriculture, prior to the budget, kept telling farm group after farm group that meaningful economic assistance would be forthcoming in the budget.
Does the minister actually believe that an extra $50 million in the Farm Credit Corporation is really of assistance, especially when the estimates of the basic need for the Farm Credit Corporation has been calculated to be between $500 million and $1 billion? In fact, $45 million of that $50 million will be paid back fully in principal and interest. Does the minister actually believe that the cancellation of the Small Business Development Bond Program at the end of this year, except for those in dire straits, is beneficial to Canadian agriculture? I would hope not.
It is obvious that the minister does not understand the financial crisis facing Canadian agriculture today. He obviously does not have the necessary input and clout and influence in cabinet to secure the necessary programs and policies to cope with the current situation in the agricultural industry today. Rather than dealing with a piece of legislation which would offer immediate help and hope to Canadian farmers, we are dealing with legislation creating a new Crown corporation, a corporation which in the short term will benefit mainly its chairman in the form of a suggested salary of between $100,000 and $200,000. However, the long-term benefits will not accrue to farmers until several years later.
I heard the minister make a comment on that, but these are the rumours and I raise them. I am sure that other speakers will raise them.


Eugene Whelan: Grocery product manufacturers pay their manager $120,000.


John Wise: Therefore, we should be dealing with legislation which will help Canadian agriculture immediately. There should be legislation for an immediate moratorium on farm bankruptcies, foreclosures and forced sales, in order to prevent 48-hour auction sales, to stop the sale of productive assets, to eliminate the sale of valuable livestock at slaughterhouse prices and to give the necessary time for governments to put into place effective and meaningful programs and policies for the survival and indeed for the recovery of the agricultural
Canagrex Act
industry. We should be amending the Farm Credit Corporation legislation so as to allow it to borrow funds from the private marketplace.


Eugene Whelan: We will on Wednesday.


John Wise: We will not on Wednesday.


Eugene Whelan: Why?


John Wise: I think it is very obvious.
Rather than the tax disincentives in the budget, the Minister of Agriculture should have been able to convince his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to implement the agri-bound concept. This would give farmers access to money at interest rates below prime. The cost to the public treasury would be extremely small and the benefits to the farm community would be immense.
Understandably, the farm community today is absolutely convinced that this government does not care about the agricultural industry. Not only does the agricultural industry need adequate financial support today, it also needs support through a meaningful piece of legislation. The Minister of Agriculture would certainly do well to give serious consideration to the proposal of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to set up a market risk insurance plan which would involve a three-way participation among the two levels of government and the producer.
Another area which could be dealt with would be an upgrading of the V-day values for the capital gains tax. The minister should be familiar with this suggestion because this has been a long-time election promise by his government, a promise which is always ignored shortly after the election campaign is over.
The minister has promised time and time again to the agricultural community to update the valuation day values of the present day from 1971 to 1974 values. I suggest that a far better solution to deal with capital gains would be a once-in-a-lifetime exemption from the sale of a farm by a bona fide farmer.
We could also be dealing with legislation with respect to rebates on fuels used for food production. Given the increases in the energy prices, a total exemption of tax would be appropriate and would indeed benefit all segments of the agri-food industry. Producers, processors, distributors and indeed 24 million Canadians would benefit from that type of legislation.
It is interesting to note that the price of gasoline has increased by approximately 75 cents a gallon since we received the message that, upon election, the government would keep fuel prices down. Of that 75 cents, 36 cents is taken out in tax alone, which works out to about twice as much as 18 cents.
Measures could be implemented to help market returns, because many of today's producers are suffering from a severe cost price squeeze. At the same time, because of the lack of advertising, promotion and public information, many Canadian consumers are willing to pay about $1.50 for a head of

January 25, 1982
Canagrex Act
grade D imported lettuce. Surely these consumers would be willing to pay a little more for a grade A Canadian product. However, because of the twisted priorities of this government, we do not have any of these worth-while measures to deal with. We can only debate the merits of Canagrex, another Crown corporation to which it is rumoured the present Minister of Agriculture might be heading once it is established. If that rumour is true, Mr. Speaker, I can understand why so many people are so eager to have this legislation passed so quickly. Maybe there is another thought in the back of the minister's mind to account for the fact that he is extremely anxious that this bill actually pass tonight and not on Wednesday.


Eugene Whelan: 1 might even be thinking about giving you a job.


John Wise: I appreciate the minister's comment. However, there are other questions which we will be asking throughout the debate and more particularly throughout the committee stage. We want to be assured of accountability and control. We want to have some indication as to the possible intentions the government might have with regard to who might serve on the board of directors, whom they might have in mind to take on the position of president and chairman.
We want to discuss to some degree the salaries, expenses and superannuation and we would be quite willing to talk about some of these issues in an in camera session of the standing committee. It is possible because it has been done before with regard to the beef import law. I think we achieved some measure of success because of the fact that there was an offer and a willingness on the part of the minister to convey some of this information to us in an in camera session.
The minister has indicated that he would be making a report to Parliament on the progress of Canagrex. That is fine, but it is really not good enough. We would like to see the minister not only table the report from Canagrex on an annual basis but have the report automatically referred to committee. If Canagrex is formed, we are anxious to see it operate successfully and to ensure that it does indeed increase the export sale of Canadian agricultural products. However, if it does not perform adequately, we want to know about it. We can only know about it if the annual report is referred to committee, thus allowing us to cross examine the officials of Canagrex during committee hearings.
We would also like to see a sunset clause provided in this legislation which would allow a Crown corporation to receive a mandate for a further five years if it is doing an effective job. I believe there are some 200 Crown corporations in Canada, many of which could be wound down. It would be no loss to the Canadian taxpayer, and in fact it would probably be a tax saving.
As I have indicated, the message is that we certainly accept the concept of conditional or qualified support. I have raised some questions. Others will be raised by my colleagues in the debate. Yet other questions will be put forward in committee, and the government must be able to provide answers to those questions and must be able to convince the members of the
committee of the necessity of a separate Crown corporation to support agricultural products.
I will just close my remarks by saying that if this can be done and if it is not possible to perform this function having Canagrex as a division within Agriculture Canada or within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce-I am interested only in increasing export sales-and if we can be satisfied about some other matters which will be raised, I am certain Canagrex will receive some support.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this particular piece of legislation. It has been a long time since it was announced. We in this corner of the House are basically optimistic about the legislation in the same way, I suppose, farmers are optimistic when they go out to seed new crops. We do not see very much description as to what will be brought about here, but we think that the concept and the idea has some possibilities. We do, however, have a number of questions, and we will be raising them in the next few days and in committee.
The farm community too has waited a long time for this legislation. The minister has talked about it and talked about it. It was announced back in February of last year. The bill was finally printed and before us just a few weeks before this session was interrupted for the Christmas break. We appreciate the minister's comments in his speech this evening pleading for speedy passage, but given the fact that this has been coming for lo this past year at least and being cognizant of the remarks of the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), who pointed out that this legislation has had a much longer gestation period even than that, I think a few more days of careful discussion and consideration can help rather than hinder the plan behind this legislation.
We agree that there are special needs for some agricultural exports which will require the full-time attention and practical knowledge of people involved in the process at all times. My limited experience in the marketing of agricultural products with the Saskatchewan Hog Marketing Commission and the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee tells me that this is a very important role, and it is very important that it be fullfilled correctly and properly. I do not agree with some critics of this type of marketing that it cannot play a useful role.
I have some questions about the functions of Canagrex which I will be raising here and in the committee, but the concept itself is one which deserves further attention and deserves developing.
I realize that some people in the industry think that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce should be carrying out these kinds of duties through its commercial counsellors, and indeed some of the job of selling Canadian agricultural products can be carried out that way-and is- but during the Christmas break the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce underwent a revamping. There is a not

too well understood combining of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce with foreign affairs postings. This probably leaves even more room for Canagrex to function on the world stage, with the assistance and full co-operation of commercial counsellors in Canadian embassies and trade offices.
We do see that there will be some difficulties for Canagrex, If I were to make a short list of the kinds of products Canagrex is likely to be handling-products which have a potential for further exports-a short list not ranked by priority or anything, it would include pork, potatoes, higher grade beef cuts-a form of boxed beef-specialized products such as lentils, fababeans, mustard, fescue for grass seed, fresh peas, fresh beans, dried peas, dried beans and other vegetables for the frozen trade. In particular, root vegetables are something we produce quite competitively. Also, we see some possibilities for apples and apple products, and given some slight change in the world economic climate, we think there is a potential for poultry products, including chicks and breeding stock, as well as some opportunity for increases in semen sales.
When we look at that list, the job Canagrex has outlined for itself, the budget it has to operate under and the guidelines which are probable and likely, we conclude that Canagrex's first job is-perhaps unfortunately-likely to be to plump for the development of some of these smaller volume products. I say that from my limited experience with pork producers, for instance, which I think some of the drafters of Canagrex had hoped would be one of its first customers, there are some problems to overcome with the marketing of pork which perhaps some of the weaker, less developed commodities will not have, simply because their producers have not been established long enough to develop them. Pork producers have developed a series of marketing agencies in the provinces. In addition to that, all of the packing houses in this country have very sizeable pork departments, and they strive to export pork. In short, when export buyers are interested in Canadian pork or show some interest in Canadian pork, there is a multitude of potential sellers knocking at their door attempting to sell them that commodity. In an ideal world, if we could go to those countries with just one agency-one seller-it would be to the advantage of Canadian producers, Canadian processors and the whole pork industry. However, in the competitive climate we have set up in this country, that will be very, very difficult to carry out. The directors, managing directors and the chief executive officer of Canagrex will not only have to be very good salesmen and know the international market, but the organization will also have to have an ability to bring together the various sectors, organizations and groups within the country if they are to be able to guarantee a product.
I think that is one of the basic problems Canagrex will have. It may be successful in bringing together a group of people who are very good at exporting and making contacts in the export trade for agricultural products, but the back-up-the integrated production to consumer chain of command, so to speak-which is there in some of the one-desk selling agencies such as the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission will be lacking in Canagrex. I think this is one of
Canagrex Act
its shortcomings, by virtue of the fact that it is a voluntary organization and will be able to function only as well as its ability to bring the various sectors of the industry together.
I think we should take a moment or two to analyse how difficult this job will be and the position that Canagrex will find itself in. How is a brand new organization to break into, say, the Japanese market for pork almost overnight when we already have eight or nine in total, and certainly four or five, very large meat processing companies attempting, and some succeeding, to break into that market every month of the year? Are those processing plants going to give up their access to the Japanese market and stand aside for Canagrex? I doubt that, Mr. Speaker. They do not stand aside for some pork marketing boards in this country or for anyone else. In the process of trying to break into the market, will Canagrex not have to do the same thing as some provincial boards and some processing plants have had to do, that is, offer a better deal, a lower price and, we hope, a better product? How are they to do that and still bring benefit to Canadian producers? That is a conundrum that will have to be solved in the agricultural committee. I think it should be solved before Canagrex is struck.
I realize that the 11 board members set their own terms of reference, so to speak, and set their own marketing program on a three-year basis, but there must be some kind of guideline if they are to do an intelligent job. I do not see any immediate advantage unless further back-up is provided and further assistance is granted to help them break into the larger markets with commodities such as pork. That is too bad, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that one of the trump cards for touting Canagrex in this country is to help sell important products like pork. As I understand this legislation, that is not likely to happen.
We know from the description of Canagrex that was presented by the minister and from papers which were introduced prior to the presentation of Canagrex in the form of a bill, that it is supposed to have the power to intervene in the market where needed or desired in order to purchase, process or sell products. I congratulate the minister and the government for leaving these powers in the bill in face of the criticisms made by the Canadian meat council, as I believe it is called. The government and members of the House, however, should be conscious of the fact that the ability to intervene at any stage and make purchases at any stage in the production through processing, still means that it has to be done in competition with the processors and, in some cases, with the marketing boards. It will sometimes be very difficult for the producers to see that they have gained any advantage, because in order to compete they will probably be bidding the price down rather than raising it and thus ensuring that the total efforts of the industry are consolidated, which I think was the intention in the first place.


An hon. Member:: How is competition going to lower the price?

January 25, 1982
Canagrex Act


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: My friend asks how competition is going to lower the price. Competition always lowers the price in an export market when the buyer is able to shop around. If pork is available from eight or ten different sources, the Japanese will buy it from the cheapest source. Those who have supplied the Japanese in the past will have to be able to buy at a price that will allow them to continue to supply that market. Eventually the price has to be bid down to the producer in order to meet the price constraints of the world market.
I think there are very definite price constraints in the world market. There are not many countries that are able and willing to pay the price for products that will result in a modest profit to the Canadian producer. That is one of the problems this particular strategy has not addressed very well. That, at least, makes it consistent with the agri-food policy because I am not sure that the farm sector has been addressed very well in the agri-food policy being presented to the country by the government and the Department of Agriculture.
The quality of this agency will depend on the quality of the people attracted or appointed to it. If a raft of political appointees or a bunch of burned out civil servants who are looking for close to retirement sinecures are appointed, then Canagrex will not be very effective. It will quickly fade into obscurity and there will be no benefit derived at the farm level or in world trade. If dynamic and imaginative people are appointed who are prepared to look at the industry with an open mind and a pragmatic philosophy toward marketing, then Canagrex can succeed.
I cannot allow this debate to go too much further without mentioning one other concern that I have and that is how inappropriate it is for an agency like Canagrex to be marketing in Third World countries. In the past we have had some rather unfortunate examples of Canadian agricultural agencies and aid agencies providing products to Third World countries which have no way of using them. We have given skim milk powder and milk products to countries whose people have not consumed milk since the time they were weaned. They have never developed the ability to digest milk and they do not have the appropriate enzymes in their stomachs to aid in the digestion of dairy products.
We have made gifts and have provided aid for the purchase of commodities in countries which simply do not have a societal acceptance of such commodities. While some terrible mistakes have been made in the past, I think this should not hinder us from attempting to aid countries where the industrial process is advanced enough that new forms of food will be welcomed. We should make certain, however, that Canagrex is made aware of some of the gaffes that Canada made in Third World countries in the past and that these are not repeated.
Canagrex is a good idea, Mr. Speaker. But some of the conditions necessary to make it a success are not present in Canada at the moment and they are not within the scope of Canagrex itself. I think particularly of the ability to provide the back-up for the marketing thrust. When the minister spoke, he said that you cannot have production without a market because this means waste, but then a little later he said
that Canada is so efficient that it produces surpluses. There seems to be a contradiction in terms in these remarks. If we are truly efficient in our marketing process and the control of production, we should be able to avoid surpluses.
I hope we do not set up an agency which is not cognizant of our ability to produce and the cost of that production. This is fundamental and almost simplistic, but our agricultural policy over the past few years seems to have missed those fundamentals. The agri-food strategy presented to us over the last several months appears not to pay much attention to the basic production unit. For instance, if we are to have truly efficient agriculture in the country, one would think that our agriculture, as opposed to that of countries with inefficient agriculture, would be able to generate adequate investment capital to keep itself going and growing. This has not been the case in Canadian agriculture, basically because farm prices are such that net incomes have not grown as Canadian agriculture has grown. In 1974, realized net incomes in the country were $3.5 billion, a fairly hefty sum, but through all the years from 1974 to 1980-81, it has not risen much above that amount. We have hung in there around $3.5 billion of net income. In fact, the projected outlook for 1982 is that it will be 15 per cent lower or slightly lower than $3.5 billion. For seven or eight years, net incomes have been virtually the same as they were back in 1974, in spite of the fact that a 1974 dollar buys just about twice what a 1981 or 1982 dollar buys. In real terms, net farm incomes have been cut in half. This was not from the lack of production. Production in dollar terms rose 2.5 times during that period of time.
How did farmers continue to stay in business? They did it by adding to their farm debt. They went into the period of time which I have been discussing with just under $7 billion worth of debt, and by the end of 1980 the most recent figures I have been able to obtain indicate a debt of $16.5 billion. Up to the present time, we have accumulated an extra debt of $10 billion to $12 billion because of a lack of ability to create adequate farm incomes in order to provide reinvestment on farms. It is not a particularly healthy industry from which to sell more product, but it is an integrated part of the system and must be acted upon. I do not think adequate attention has been paid to basic producers or farmers down on the land. What benefit will they receive from Canagrex? If it does not show up in improved net incomes, why should they care or become involved? Why should their little marketing boards, marketing co-ops or community organizations ask Canagrex to sell their products for them? This must be considered as part of the agri-food strategy, but I do not think it is being considered in the current one before us at this time.
Interest rates are rising. Over the period of time about which I have been talking, interest costs to Canadian farmers rose from $473 million to approximately $2.2 billion at the end of 1981. This one little part of agricultural production costs has risen five times at the same time as net farm incomes have remained the same. One could refer to many more input costs of farmers which have climbed, but interest rates have climbed

phenomenally. It is part of the agri-food strategy and the agri-food chain which is not being addressed by the government. It must be tackled if Canagrex is to be a success.
Another aspect of the agri-food policy which can affect the success or failure of Canagrex is the transportation policy. The country has grown to the extent it has, in terms of the agricultural output, because of an agricultural transportation policy which takes care of outside regions. It was designed to encourage the production of prairie grain and the movement of products at reduced rates to the maritimes. It is an integral part of the Canadian agricultural policy structure, a part which should not be changed rapidly or in haste for reasons which have nothing to do with agricultural productivity. We do not see how increasing the so-called Crow rate on grains will do anything for Canadian agriculture. We do not see how the reduction of net incomes by transferring money from the pockets of farmers to the pockets of the railways will do anything for the redevelopment or continued development of agriculture, an industry which already borrows heavily to keep its investment capital in shape. We do not think it is a wise trade-off to be made or even to be proposed, yet we are faced with rumours of this and speeches by cabinet ministers that this is about to happen.
The transportation policy does not take into account processed goods from certain regions. For instance, processed chilled beef can be shipped from Toronto to Saskatoon, if anyone wants to ship it in that direction, for much less than it can be shipped from Saskatoon to Toronto. It is not regulated, it is not statutory. It is not in existence because of some ancient agreement with the CPR so that it could develop a rail line into Trail to develop some mines. It is just there because it is the manner in which railways priced their products. That pricing structure probably has more to do with the location of packing plants than has the Crow rate, yet we in the House are not attacking or addressing this in public very much.


Eugene Whelan: Yes, we are.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: We do not hear of it very much.


Eugene Whelan: You do not listen.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Canagrex will have to be assisted by policies which handle the transportation problem as well as the farm pricing problem. The question of market stabilization is not very well explained in the bill. The bill makes clear those things with which Canagrex will not involve itself. Clause 14(2)(a) indicates that Canagrex shall not "pay to producers or processors a subsidy directly on any Canadian agricultural product or food product", yet we do not have completely adequate stabilization programs so that price guarantees are built into the production formula for farmers. If the farmers are not certain of some price guarantees, why would they produce products for Canagrex to market? They will not do it only because Canagrex is there. There must be an advantage at the farm. That has not been made clear in this bill up to this point, in part because there are not clearly stated policies for transportation and income protection.
Canagrex Act
I think this bill ought to be dealt with in committee. There are a great many aspects of the bill to which we should have answers before it is passed in the House. The question of auditing has not made that clear. It says that the Auditor General shall audit the books. It does not spell out all of the guidelines in that regard. It still leaves us exposed to some of the problems which the CDC is alleged to have had according to some investigations that have been carried out. We do not think any new agency should be left wide open to those kinds of problems or the possibility of such problems. We think they should be clarified prior to the agency being set up rather than bringing in some doubt as to its ability to function. We do not think that serves either Canagrex, the proposed Crown agency, CDC, or any other Crown agency. Neither does it provide a useful service to farmers to create doubts in the operation because of an inability to explain its business practices to an auditor. We think these items should be spelled out more clearly. We think the minister and some of his officials should appear before the agricultural committee of this House to explain, according to the usual customs and procedures, the bill we will have before us in committee. Generally speaking, as I said at the beginning, we are optimistic about this bill. We think it can have good implications for agriculture, but it must be well managed on the way. Not only must the people who are appointed to this agency do their jobs constructively, but so must members of this House whose function and duty it is to make certain that the bill is as well put together as possible. We think this can only be done in committee and that this bill should not be pushed through the House post-haste.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to speak to the House on a bill as important as the one before us tonight, namely an act to establish a Canadian agriculture export corporation, Canagrex. At this point, I want to pay tribute to the farm organizations across Canada and to those farmers who have contributed to the initial discussions of the concept. I want to commend the minister for following their suggestions so closely in the legislation before us tonight.
The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) pointed out that this matter was approved by cabinet almost a year ago. He has perhaps found a little fault on the part of the minister for the delay in bringing this legislation before us. However, I believe the hon. member should look at the number of filibustering delays of last year, particularly last spring. Filibustering took place with regard to the Constitution but also a great deal of time was spent on the Canada lands oil and gas act, which took even more time than the Constitution did. I am not aware that the hon. member had tabled any similar legislation when he was minister, but given a little more time I am sure he would have.
However, I cannot help but respond to his concerns on the funding of this corporation. I can only suggest that one has to walk before one can run. Therefore, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that in the initial stages we should

January 25, 1982
Canagrex Act
proceed with caution and work with the producers and their organizations to seek out and encourage sales opportunities in areas of highest potential. In this context, Canagrex does not require large amounts of money in its fledgling stages. But surely as the need grows we as a Parliament can make the financial adjustments as required. I for one hope that Canagrex will not result in a large bureaucracy but rather be a slim, trim organization consisting of the best expertise available, acting as a focal point that can work with our farm organizations and marketing boards, the processors and the shippers in a truly Canadian effort that will utilize our technical expertise and, in particular, our potential as outlined in the minister's food strategy report.
In the next few minutes I intend to examine the need for such a body on the basis of the type of agricultural industry which exists in Canada, the problems it is facing in ever-enlarging world markets and the ability of Canagrex to provide a co-ordinated approach to the marketing of our agricultural and food exports.
We all know that the agricultural industry is important to this country's economy. In fact, it is one of the nation's largest employers, and as Canadians we are one of four countries in the world that is a net exporter of food. Canadian farmers, with the population we have, do not have a large enough domestic market to produce only for Canadian use. The export sector is of vital importance to the well-being of Canadian agriculture and of our total economy.
Agriculture exports represent 40 per cent to 44 per cent of total cash farm receipts in Canada while in the United States this percentage is only about 25 per cent. In spite of this, the agriculture industry is not taking full advantage of the market potentials which exist abroad. Agriculture in Canada is characterized by a great diversity of farm products, and in many cases the producers do not have the expertise and the capital to take the risks involved in operating in an international market.
Many federal and provincial government programs lend assistance to agricultural marketing, but none give the necessary comprehensive, co-ordinating assistance which Canagrex will provide that will bring the potential of this industry into proper focus.
We have a challenge to meet here in Canada. At the Canadian agricultural outlook conference held in Ottawa the first week of December of this year, it was projected that the world's population would increase at an annual rate of 1.8 per cent between 1980 and the year 2000, reaching a total of 6.4 billion people by the year 2000. Much of this growth will be in developing countries where 50 cents of every dollar is spent on food. Canagrex will be the vehicle to help Canadian agriculture rise to this growing challenge. Canagrex will provide the opportunity for the Canadian agricultural industry and the diverse marketing infrastructure in place in this country to take advantage of these growing markets. Canagrex will be able to identify and secure markets for producers and to support farmers and their organizations to meet these challenges.
Canagrex will be a co-ordinated marketing effort. It will bring our marketing efforts into focus and will utilize the potential of Canadian farmers and their ability to produce for world markets. Certainly there is a need for close co-operation between the producer, the processor, and the marketing people in order to improve our export markets. We intend to work closely with these groups in an effort to beef up attempts in areas of highest potential.
I am proud to say that the legislation is intended to ensure that farmers and their organizations will be heavily involved in the decision-making process. The proposed policy advisory committee, representing all parts of the food and agriculture sectors, will be appointed by the minister and will meet with the minister to review operations and policies of Canagrex. We also intend Canagrex to work closely with the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission. But in no way is Canagrex intended to duplicate or interfere with any activities or functions of these bodies or simply to become another level of bureaucracy. In fact, it is intended that Canagrex should co-operate fully with existing marketing agencies and boards across Canada. When you examine the situation, you find that we are perhaps the only nation in the world with the capacity to plan our production in an orderly manner so as to meet the terms of long-range contractual agreements and possibly tie selling prices to production costs.
By working in partnership with packers, processors and others in allied industries, we can enter into long-term contractual arrangements which are not as exposed to the vagaries of the marketplace as is the case now, and allow the farmers of Canada to plan production for both domestic and export markets.
Co-ordination is certainly a key word when we talk about Canagrex. There is a need to present foreign buyers with a clearly identifiable institution which deals with all agricultural commodities, except those which are the responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission. At present a foreign buyer is sometimes faced with having to deal with as many as 11 governments and their agencies in Canada. The trend is more and more to have governments deal with governments, and Canagrex will provide this facility and avoid the confusion which now faces the foreign buyer. By working with existing marketing agencies, it will work to increase the volume and variety of exports of Canadian agricultural products.
Co-ordination is also needed on the part of those involved in selling our agricultural products abroad. At present, we have ten provincial governments pursuing marketing policies which serve to undercut other provinces. As a consequence, we have producers in one province bidding against those in another, in effect, Canadians bidding against Canadians. An example of this happened several years ago when several provinces, I believe it was five, conducted sales missions to the same country at the same time, all trying to sell pork and bidding against each other. I am aware that last year alone several sales missions were sent abroad by several provinces competing with one another, and certainly that has never made much
January 25, 1982

sense to me. We should be acting as one country selling abroad, not as individual provinces pitted against each other. This will be one possible result of the implementation of this legislation. In addition, I believe the various other problems related to the agricultural industry will also fade or disappear.
It is hoped that we will be able to diversify our exports. Wheat, barley, rapeseed and flaxseed now account for about 60 per cent of Canada's agricultural exports. At the same time Canagrex will be able to foster diversification of markets for agricultural products other than unprocessed grains and oilseeds. Often the United States is the only significant market for other agricultural products. In such a manner Canagrex will be able to co-operate with the producers, processors and marketing institutions at present available in order to increase the volume and variety of sales of our farm products. In this context, I should remind the House that I am aware of several marketing boards which are waiting for the passage of the legislation to assist them in making contracts with other nations who want to deal on a state-to-state basis.
It does not make much sense to me that, in a land with such potential, exports of agricultural products as a percentage of our total exports have declined since 1974. In that year, they accounted for more than 12 per cent of total exports. By 1979-80, they decreased to less than 10 per cent. Certainly this decline exemplifies the need for a co-ordinated approach in marketing abroad.
Canagrex will go a long way toward solving other longstanding agricultural problems faced by the Canadian producer. I have heard a lot of complaints recently from farmers in my area about various things, but one problem in particular surfaced very recently of a buyer who backed out of a contractual arrangement with a private trader, creating a surplus of that product not only here in Canada but a surplus which will eventually reflect back to our neighbours to the south, leaving the producers with a surplus and a bleak year ahead of them as far as this product is concerned. Such an occurrence will be less likely to happen with a Crown corporation dealing on a government to government basis.
In addition, Canagrex will be able to provide bridge financing to assist Third World countries and make export markets less of a risk for the Canadian producer in the sense that another government is less likely to back out of a deal than a private importer. It will also establish the base for long-term contracts which will provide the buyer with continuity of supply of a quality product.
Canadian farmers have the ability, the expertise and the base to produce for these markets. Certainly it is the nature of farmers to want to produce. If you recall Wilkin's law, an economist of the 1930s, we surely must recognize the importance of increased exports of our renewable resources and their contribution to our total economy.
As I indicated earlier, I have talked to scores of farmers and their organizations and I know their reactions. It is our duty as their elected representatives to ensure speedy passage and implementation of this legislation. I know there is a need to find more secure markets, to expand existing markets, and to
Canagrex Act
then encourage production levels to meet those market demands on a continuous basis if we are to take full advantage of the opportunities which will present themselves to the Canadian farmer in the decade ahead.
The goal of Canagrex is to provide new markets to the Canadian producer and to ensure a continuity and stability of income which is not at present available to them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, if there is an industry in Canada which needs improved marketing capabilities, it has to be agriculture. If there is an industry which needs advice on pricing in the international market, it has to be agriculture. In its present form-and I am not necessarily recommending that form be changed-there is often too little advice on market potential and price on a worldwide basis. This is something which I have advocated ever since I first participated in agricultural organizations, attending Canadian horticultural councils, and ever since I became a member of an elected body, first in the province of New Brunswick and then here.
That advice on and knowledge of the potential of foreign markets has been lacking. I remember, for example, one occasion when I was seeking markets for New Brunswick potatoes as an employee of the government of New Brunswick.
I tried to get a list of potato markets but it was not available from the Department of Agriculture. That was about ten years ago, and that department did not have knowledge of the potato importing countries, nor did it have any knowledge of market prices.
It is for that reason that, when I became a member of the House, I persistently stated that there should be more market information and, as the former minister of agriculture pleaded with the government earlier, there should be consular representation for agriculture on a worldwide basis wherever there may be markets. This is lacking, as the former minister pointed out, and I commend him for his statistics in that regard, and also for pointing out the fact that some of these representatives-at least four of the 11, in my opinion-are located in communities where they can be of little if any value to any aspect of agriculture in the Dominion of Canada. That area has been neglected.
In spite of all the window-dressing which this bill has received and all the promotion which it has been granted, it does not fill the bill. I have several reservations about it.
I think that these reservations are shared by many other people in the agricultural field who have recently spoken. I think it would not be inappropriate to refer to some of their remarks. Mr. Runciman called for an end to production quotas and then added that the Wheat Board should compete with private companies for the farmers' grain instead of having a monopoly over exports of wheat, oats and barley. It is a delusion, he asserted, that a system of planned socialism could be operated according to democratic methods of government.

January 25, 1982
Canagrex Act
He said that a democracy is inseparably linked with capitalism, and that democracy cannot exist under a planned economy. He offered Poland as an example. Farmers must decide whether they are advocates of economic freedom or of socialism. There is no such thing as a little bit of government intervention, said Runciman. A little bit leads to more. He told the farmers in no uncertain terms that they must choose between the market economy and socialism. I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. It is sort of like becoming bald. I do not have a lot of experience, but I am getting there. A few of us become a little bald. The progression is something that we look at with horror after it has begun and over which we have no control. It is with the warning of Mr. Runciman, who has been a long-time agriculturalist, that I speak to the House of Commons and urge caution. Perhaps, if I would not be considered crude, I would say that it is like being a little bit pregnant to introduce a little bit of socialism into this marketing field.
We have also heard a recent statement by the president of the chamber of commerce who, I believe, was once a member of the House on the government side. He, too, has cautioned that we must give the private enterprise system an opportunity to function and that we must not invoke too many regulations and cause too many difficulties to the functioning of our present system.
It is with that in mind that, as I read this bill, I have some concerns. I am concerned that in no place in this bill can I find any point in time at which the committee on agriculture, the committee on public accounts or any other committee will have an opportunity to give an in-depth and analytical look into the operation of Canagrex to determine what it is going to do. It becomes another Crown corporation, one of almost 500 in Canada today, and it does not come under scrutiny in any meaningful way beyond that of the minister and the Auditor General.
1 presume that the minister and hon. members on your right, Mr. Speaker, will say, "But it shall come before a committee of the House for consideration". However, we are in a committee system which gives us a block system. We get an allocation of time. We get a minister of agriculture who fills us with blarney and very little fact at those committee meetings, and time is wasted and information is scarce. I am very concerned that we are creating for agriculture, which is one of the principal interests of my constituency, something which can be swept under the rug. It shall not be accountable to the House of Commons or to the committee on agriculture.
I am further more concerned that Canagrex will also come under government committees, not committees of the House of Commons but committees of ministers. The bill very clearly states that Canagrex will function under the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) but there shall be consultation with other departments of government. There shall be the use of programs of other departments of government. It is not an independent agricultural organization. I am afraid that under these circumstances it will become as subject to extraneous input as would be the farm prices board, which now governs
the egg, poultry and other organizations of Canada, headed by a consumer proponent rather than by an agricultural proponent. That does not give agriculture very much of a chance. We have no assurance, for instance, that the president shall come from the field of agriculture. We have no assurance that the vice-president or the second vice-president, or anyone else, shall be appointed from the active, commercial sector of agriculture.
I am concerned about these things, and I ask the minister, in the pursuit and consideration of this bill, to let us have a better definition than we have at present. I do not want a consumer advocate to be telling agriculture and its marketing processors, "You should not charge more than", as the poultry marketing boards of this nation have been told. The dairy board of this nation has been told, "You shall not use present capital costs as a means of arriving at the cost of producing milk", for instance. There has been an ongoing discussion between the lady chairman of the board and the dairy people and the poultry people concerning the proper costing basis. Will we find ourselves in the same boat under this structure? I must say to Your Honour that if there is to be inflation in the world, then the government, including the Department of Agriculture, must recognize it and govern itself accordingly. We cannot be subject to the whim and pleasure of outside forces if they in turn will not consider the full costs incurred by the agricultural producer.
While I had some favourable thoughts on this bill prior to the time the Minister of Agriculture spoke, I must say that he turned me off when he stated-if I am not quoting him incorrectly, although not absolutely directly-that there are other markets which, for instance, would take the red meats today. He used the American market as an example. He said that we should be able to extract prices from that market which would be profitable to the farmers. The document which I have in my hand indicates that in a week in January, although I am not sure of the exact week, somewhere between 1400 and 1800 head of American cattle arrived on the Canadian market. Why did they come to the Canadian market? It is because they must have received a better return than they could receive in the American market. Can Your Honour tell me how, in the name of the great Father above, the farmer will buy the promotional statement that we could sell meat to the United States because they can afford to buy it at a profit to our farmers when they are already using our market as their market?
Let me give Your Honour another example. The minister said we should be able to sell red meat to the Soviet Union. It was my privilege on one occasion in this House to be part of the House of Commons and Senate committee which was meeting with the European parliamentary delegation. At that particular time, a European parliamentarian told us that approximately 500,000 tonnes of beef were in cold storage because there was no market for it in the European Economic Community. At the same time, there were world news items on that day stating that the Russian agricultural minister, or whatever he might be called-commissioner, commissar-had
January 25, 1982

to reduce the cattle population of Russia because there was not enough grain to feed it. If there had been a market for red meat in Russia, there was lots of red meat to be subsidized by the $10 billion reserve fund of the European Economic Community; yet that meat was lying in cold storage, aging and deteriorating, because there was no market. Let us be reasonable. Had there been a Russian market while they were depleting their herd, the European Economic Community had a $10 billion reserve fund for the subsidization of export of agricultural products surplus to the need of the European Economic Community.
I submit that our Minister of Agriculture has done a great disfavour and a serious disservice to agriculture in Canada by that type of misleading statement. I compliment the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) who supports in principle the idea of Canagrex but who expressed reservations which I hope may become part of the committee process. I hope he will stand as firmly on this and as strenuously as is required in the interests of agriculture. A blind vote for this as it is presently written is not good for agriculture in Canada today or any other day.
The minister talked about selling red meat to Japan. The minister will recall that an element of major progress was made by western pork producers, initiated by the Alberta pork producers. A contract was in fact made to sell pork to Japan. At that time Alberta expanded its hog operations. If my memory serves me correctly, it went to 1,600,000 hogs in Alberta at peak. If I am not mistaken, there are barely 500,000 hogs in Alberta today.
There is no market for any significant amount of pork in Japan. They have been exploring that market for a decade. That is a public body, not government to government as the minister so loudly professes this shall be. However, it is the co-operative structure of Canada dealing with a government in good faith.
While there may be a few more porkers sold there now, certainly the long-term dreams of the pork industry of western Canada have not materialized as a result of a market in Japan. Why? As we passed a red meat act in this House, the Japanese government put in place a control on all meat imports to protect its industry at a level and price which satisfy its farms. The mere passing of this act will not give us what the minister suggests. We may have an agency which can give some information and have some marketing capability, but that is the best we are going to have.


Eugene Whelan: Now, now, don't be so optimistic, Fred.


Fred Alward McCain: I will be frank and honest and above board. I am not going to delude farmers into thinking this is the magic wand of price for which they have been looking so long. We already have a price stabilization board and CIDA, both of which should be capable of stimulating exports of our surpluses.
Canagrex Act
The statement has been made that we can control and plan our surpluses. The minister will agree that the present cattle population in Canada will indicate that the price of beef should be good. The present population has gone down very materially. It has not gone down as fast as we would have liked in Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil or other beef-producing countries. As a result, there is a world market slump in beef.
We cannot plan our beef population in this little country of Canada so that we can cope with world prices unless, as I have said many times, we are prepared to exercise the authority and use the money of the price stabilization board. The population has gone down. However, what the minister overlooks is that so has consumption. The Outlook for Agriculture Conference indicated that not only had the consumption of beef gone down in the last year, it will go down further in the next year.
How can we plan and get rid of those cattle presently walking in the pastures or tied up in the barns so there will not be an excess next year? We cannot predict the economy of this nation. To tell the farmers we can is deceit. To tell the farmers further that we can control world markets and guarantee them prices without price stabilization is further misrepresentation of the facts.


Eugene Whelan: We are doing that with many products now.


Fred Alward McCain: Yes, you are. However, if we expand this, we lose our capability to export in the field of agriculture as we lost our capability of exporting in poultry and eggs. We have decimated that export market. We cannot maintain it any better in other fields if we regulate as the minister proposes.
If the Minister of Agriculture were as sincere and believable as he would have us believe, we would have the same incomeaveraging opportunity that the farmers had. We would still have the same depreciation allowance that we had. We would still have the right to sell a farm from father to son. We would not have to pay the capital gains in advance. Where has the minister been?


Eugene Whelan: This is the only country in the world that lets a farmer give a farm to his son tax-free.


Fred Alward McCain: That is not correct. Do not mislead the farm population. Farms are inherited and passed on in a dozen countries without any such foolish tax.


Eugene Whelan: Name me one.


Gordon Edward Taylor: There won't be one to pass on. Look at capital gains, capital costs.


Eugene Whelan: They have it in the United States too, remember that.


Erik Nielsen: You are an embarrassment to everyone who wears a green hat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. Usually the Chair can hear the hon. member who has been recognized and is

January 25, 1982
Canagrex Act
standing. We are now hearing from members who are seated and we cannot hear the member who is standing.


Fred Alward McCain: Where was the minister when there was an obvious need for bridge financing which is being supplied by other governments? Where is there an organization which will provide money for the farmer on the same basis as some U.S. establishments are doing? When our cattle ranchers and feed-lot operators were paying 20 per cent to 22 per cent, some Americans were paying 8 per cent. Why do we not have anything like that? Where is our bridge financing of 8 per cent? Where has the minister been? Do not deceive the farmers.


Eugene Whelan: Don't you deceive them with your nonsense either.


Fred Alward McCain: Where is the minister going to get the expertise to participate in the export market? There are families who have been in the export market for three generations. We are setting up a board with a selection of people without definition of source, including the president, without qualification of expertise or experience in the field of agricultural marketing. If we pass this legislation as it presently exists, we will turn the exporting of agriculture over to the inept and uneducated in that field. Let us get some definition of who will be there.
I suggest to you that the minister does not have any concept of the vast knowledge required to be able to export a single commodity to 50 or 60 countries. I want to know where the expertise comes from when 100 items are exported to as many as 100 countries because I do not want to be part of a House of Commons that passes this responsibility to a group of inept, uneducated and inexperienced individuals.


Eugene Whelan: We have some of the best organizations in Canada, private and governmental.


An hon. Member:: What is the matter with the Canadian trade service?


Eugene Whelan: They have not been doing it.


An hon. Member:: Name some.


Fred Alward McCain: I do agree with some of the remarks which were made earlier. I am concerned about the competition that exists among provincial marketing structures. I suggest that these structures are not in the best interests of agriculture. However, the reason that they are competing is that there has not been leadership by this government in combining these structures. The government, through the Minister of Agriculture has had a subsidy plan introduced in British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan. What will Canagrex be able to do about the price of beef when the oversubsidized Saskatchewan cattle are now going to market and cutting the price received by the farmers who are not subsidized? Why is that, Mr. Speaker? It is because the price
stabilization board is not being used as it historically was and provinces have had to take over in defence of their farmers and replace federal responsibilities. It is misleading for the minister to introduce this legislation as a cure.


Eugene Whelan: We offered them income insurance, 100 per cent of cost of production in 1977. They refused it.


Mr. Mayer:: This is 1982, five years later.


Eugene Whelan: We offered it to them and they said, no way.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, they said no because they never dreamed that this government or any other government would completely pull the price stabilization board out of activity and when the price stabilization board proposed an estimate of $300 million in support of the beef industry three or four years ago, it was turned down by the cabinet while he was minister. It never got off the ground.


Eugene Whelan: We had offered it because-


Fred Alward McCain: Because of nothing, Mr. Speaker. Let us not have any more facades. Every member of the House knows that the price stabilization board has been neglected.


Eugene Whelan: Even you know you are wrong in what you are saying.


Fred Alward McCain: The price stabilization board policy has been neglected and the minister has been asked to exercise that at 95 per cent by one Canadian organization in agriculture.


Eugene Whelan: They did not want stabilization three years ago.


Fred Alward McCain: That is not correct.


Eugene Whelan: That is correct.


Fred Alward McCain: The minister should show some leadership. The price stabilization that was offered at that time was subject to organization and control of products and marketing. There was a little string attached to it and they would not buy it.


Eugene Whelan: Not at all. We spent more than any government in Canada's history.


Fred Alward McCain: On the basis of the inflationary dollar, I doubt if the minister spent 25 cents on the dollar in price stabilization as compared to what was spent by Mr. Gardiner when he was minister.


Eugene Whelan: We spent much more.


Fred Alward McCain: Fifty cents on the dollar perhaps?


Eugene Whelan: They did not even want that.


Fred Alward McCain: They did not want the controls that were brought in by the minister's proposition. The minister knows that as well as does every member in the House. Nothing except at a price.
January 25, 1982


Eugene Whelan: That is nonsense and you know it.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, it may be nonsense, but the potato producers of eastern Canada would suggest to you that they have been threatened with no further price stabilization payments if they did not get production and marketing control. They were threatened.


Eugene Whelan: You are saying stabilization is a waste of money when you improve it by better marketing conditions.


Fred Alward McCain: I will return to the subject of beef. The most recent publications on beef coming from the government sponsored future of agriculture in December indicated that the consumption was down and would go down further. The minister knows full well that in the beef industry in no way can you anticipate in one year a decline of 2 per cent or 3 per cent. What will be done with the cattle, calves and feeders except to market them? You cannot get rid of them anywhere in the world at this point in time, contrary to what the minister has said. We are not getting the advice which is needed.
If ever an industry needed the publicity of potential prices in the export field, it was the potato industry in the crop year 1981-82. Because that information was not publicized and perhaps not known by the Department of Agriculture, the minister will no doubt use the price cutting of dealers in the world market as an excuse for Canagrex marketing potatoes. If the public had been advised of the potential price in the export market, no sensible dealer could have cut prices to the extent they have been cut this year. That information has not been available and it is needed by the farmers' organizations and those who market. We do not need control of this industry passed over to the government. We do not need the interprovincial competition of marketing boards. We need leadership from the government and a program which will once again try to assume the federal responsibility of agriculture which will remove the interprovincial competition and subsidization which has dislocated certain crops and destroyed the marketing of others.


An hon. Member:: How would you do that?


Fred Alward McCain: My first step would never have been to remove the price stabilization board. The removal of that board encouraged the provincial subsidies. The hon. member knows that as well as I do. Someone had to step in to save their farmers and they stepped into a vacuum, starting in British Columbia and Quebec. The hog industry is dislocated. The red beef industry has been dislocated during the minister's tenure in office because there was no leadership and no knowledge of the agricultural industry.
I am not saying that I will not vote for this bill but I do say that in the interest of agriculture we need some responsibility, accountability and an indication where these officers who will run Canada's agricultural industry will come from. At that time let us consider it. In the meantime, we must keep in mind the warning from the member for Humboldt-Lake Centre and
Adjournment Debate
the warning of the former minister. They are real and not imagined.


Mr. Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, since it is getting late, I should like to call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have attended tenants' association meetings in Bayshore in my constituency and I have heard from many tenants in Parkwood Hills and other areas of my riding as well as from other parts of the Ottawa-Carleton area about the situation which has developed and is developing with respect to rental accommodation.
On December 4, 1981, I asked a question of the minister responsible for housing arising out of the budget. The question as it appeared at page 13733 of Hansard was this:
He is aware that in the Ottawa-Carleton region the major rental owner is Minto Management Limited which is intending to raise its rents substantially to some 7,000 to 9,000 tenants. We have one of the lowest vacancy rates in Canada, and there is very little choice in housing in a situation that is virtually a monopoly.
Would the minister please tell the House where in the budget there can be some specific help granted to Ottawa-Carleton so that there can be a choice made in housing? I have looked at the budget. I think the provisions in terms of alternate housing are next to useless. Will the minister make a recommendation to the Minister of Finance that he increase measures for the availability of housing stock so that people will have a choice and not be subject to a monopoly?
In answer to that question this is what the minister said:
Madam Speaker, in the budget announcement dealing with stimulus to rental construction one of the conditions of that housing and its identification for stimulus is that it be located in markets which indeed do have tight vacancy rates. 1 must bring to the attention of the hon. member that the city of Ottawa does not have a tight vacancy rate-
Let the minister tell that to any tenant searching around in the market.
-when compared with other metropolitan areas-
The minister went on to complete his answer.

January 25, 1982
Adjournment Debate
I am not arguing rent control. Rent control is a provincial matter, although I think it is absolutely necessary. It is particularly necessary in a monopoly or a virtual monopoly situation. Rent control is being looked to by the tenants' association, which is active and will be presenting the strongest case possible.
But let me deal with the minister's reasoning, and in the course of my remarks if there is some time, I will want to suggest some policy changes.
The vacancy rate in Ottawa fell from 4.2 per cent in April of 1980 to 0.6 per cent in October of 1981. According to CMHC the Ottawa-Hull area needs 7,800 new units each year. In 1980, only 2,600 new units were built, and data for the first ten months of 1981 suggested that no more than 3,000 new housing units would be built in this area in the year 1981. In other words, less than half the number of required homes and apartments are being built. In the past two years, 9,800 fewer homes were built than were required in the area, and virtually all new rental accommodation over the past few years has been government subsidized.
The major cause of this is high interest rates. At current interest rates it has been estimated that a landlord would have to charge in excess of $800 per month for a one-bedroom apartment in a new building to break even. Until the vacancy rates are either non-existent or until rents rise, private sector builders will not build, given that most people are unwilling to pay that much.
At the same time high interest rates are affecting the ability and the desire of young people to pay $1,000 in monthly mortgage payments. That is not an attractive proposition to a couple paying, for example, $300 in rent. If the couple had purchased a home, their apartment would have been made available to someone else.
The average cost in this area is staggering. In the third quarter of 1981 the average cost of a single family home was $69,000. Assuming a 10 per cent down-payment and 30 per cent of one's income going to principal, interest and tax, a family income of $40,000 a year is needed to afford an average priced home. In terms of meeting this problem this budget is virtually barren of any system by which there can be an attack made on an obvious social condition.


David P. Smith: I thought you liked it.


Walter David Baker: The net effect of the budget is that, instead of rising, the number of housing starts may be reduced. The budget offers builders some assistance for the construction of new homes, up to $7,500 per unit, but in my estimation that would only serve to reduce that $800 a month rent to $700. That is hardly an impact on the situation.
The minister himself has suggested he thinks rent controls should go; that is aside from anything else. I want to tell the minister that is really no policy at all. In that budget MURBs were cancelled when rental accommodation was being built under the MURB provision. This has been replaced with a program of little assistance. The relief for home owners in the
budget is little more than a program that allows people to keep their homes by going further into debt. I know that there is co-operative housing and all these other things; it is one thing to talk about co-operative housing but it is another thing to get it under way.
I believe there should be some major changes in the budget; in fact, the budget should be withdrawn and a new one introduced to provide relief for home owners. This could take the form of subsidized interest rates or mortgage interest deductibility. These measures would be of some help in getting people out of apartments and would encourage them to build homes.
As well, there has to be a recognition of the depth and breadth of the social problem. The reintroduction of MURBs in some form is essential.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think this budget was designed in anticipation of higher rents and, through that system, to give an incentive to landlords to build more units, rather than being a commitment by the federal Liberal Party to help tenants and home owners.
I think the best thing that could be done is to withdraw the budget and to give the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) another chance. Better still, perhaps the government should withdraw the Minister of Finance!


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond further to the matter raised by the hon. member on December 4 concerning projected rental increases in the Ottawa-Carleton region.
As the hon. member is aware, rental increases in the province of Ontario are governed by provincial legislation. Any increase in rents beyond the provincially established maximum must first receive the approval of the provincial residential tenancy commission. The hon. member is fully aware of that. Rents in Ottawa and elsewhere for a number of years have not been high enough to prompt an adequate rate of new rental construction costs. This has led to a condition of excess demand and it does not surprise me that rental increases are now occurring.
Low vacancy rates prevail in several cities across Canada. As the hon. member knows, apartment vacancy rates in Ottawa declined to 0.9 per cent in October from 2.4 per cent in April of last year. That is a problem. Centres with below 1 per cent vacancy rates are considered to be very tight and to assist these areas the Canada rental supply plan was announced in the budget on November 12. This plan will provide a total of 15,000 rental units across Canada. I wish to assure the hon. member that Ottawa will be included in the allocation of units under this plan. Of course, if the budget were withdrawn that plan would not exist and I am sure the hon. member would not want that to happen. There are, however, areas where the shortage of rental units is more severe.
January 25, 1982

In addition, I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that under the non-profit and co-operative housing programs CMHC will be approving approximately 550 units for low and moderate income families and individuals in the Ottawa area alone during 1982. This is an increase from the 465 units committed in 1980 for that area.
PENITENTIARIES-INFORMATION ON RELEASED PRISONERS GIVEN TO ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE (b) NATURE OF INFORMATION


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on November 5 I rose in the House to ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) a question regarding the policy within the correctional system of Canada. Specifically I asked whether it was the practice of prison officials to pass on to RCMP officers information regarding criminal conduct of inmates within the penitentiary system whilst they were incarcerated there. I had in mind at that time the career of Clifford Olson. 1 did not want to be specific at the time, partly because 1 wanted to deal with the principle and partly because I did not want to add notoriety to his case and jeopardize the criminal proceedings that had been launched against him.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I was surprised by the answer of the Solicitor General when he told me in the House on that day that it was indeed the practice of prison officials to pass information on to RCMP officers regarding criminal activity within the prison system.
I have checked on matters before and after that occasion and while I have no specific documentation, it is my clear understanding that RCMP officers are not privy to information regarding criminal activity engaged in by inmates within the prison system. The RCMP do not get that documented information. They must rely on street talk, particularly, and the gossip within that subculture of the prison population.
There are some people who believe that Mr. Olson would have been apprehended sooner had the RCMP known of his behaviour while he was an inmate at the B.C. Penitentiary. Specifically, as a result of Mr. Olson's behaviour prior to 1977 and 1978, was his name on a sex offender list held by the RCMP? Had he been on that list, would that not possibly have helped the RCMP to have apprehended him sooner?
I am sure the Solicitor General knows that in early 1976 Clifford Olson raped a young man at the B.C. Penitentiary. I am sure the Solicitor General knows the young man in question. Right after that three inmates in the protective custody unit attacked Clifford Olson. While that attack was being engaged in, there were over 75 inmates in the PCU at the B.C. Penitentiary watching. This was unprecedented at the B.C. Penitentiary, and the officials there knew that something had to be done. Thus, almost immediately they transferred him to Prince Albert where he was immediately attacked and stabbed by three inmates. It was as a result of that attack that he was awarded $3,500 by the Saskatchewan Crimes Compensation Board, which in its award noted that his conduct was above
Adjournment Debate
reproach, that he indicated an unusual degree of moral and physical courage and that he underwent a great deal of emotional turmoil. In June, 1977, Mr. Olson was back at the B.C. Penitentiary. He was the key witness in the trial of one Gary Marcoux, another man arrested and charged with a sex offence and murder. It is clear that without the testimony of Clifford Olson at that trial Marcoux could not-and I underscore "could not" have been convicted.
Did the penitentiary officials at the B.C. Penitentiary scrub Mr. Olson's files so that he would appear to be a credible witness at the Gary Marcoux trial? The Solicitor General will know that within that trial there was a very lengthy voir dire which dealt with the admissibility of evidence, and that evidence concerned the correspondence between Olson and Marcoux; something like 100 pages of correspondence. Would the judge at that voir dire have accepted the testimony of Mr. Olson had the judge known the career of Clifford Olson in the B.C. Penitentiary prior to the arrest and trial of Gary Marcoux? Why was the Crown prosecutor who used Mr. Olson at that trial so solicitous in helping him after the trial was over? I have a letter written by the Crown prosecutor to the chairman of the National Parole Board. In it, in part, he said:
I have no hesitation in saying that Marcoux would have gone free but for the evidence that Olson gathered and to which he testified during the course of the trial. Marcoux is a dangerous sex offender and should not, in the writer's opinion, be allowed in our community and I, as a citizen of this country, am grateful to Mr. Olson for assisting the Crown in convicting this man.
I should like to know why the prosecutor, who just last month or earlier this month became defense counsel for Mr. Olson and was previously the Crown prosecutor using Mr. Olson in the trial of Gary Marcoux, was so solicitous in helping Mr. Olson by writing to the chairman of the National Parole Board. Could it be that even the Crown prosecutor was not privy to the career of Mr. Olson while he was an inmate at the B.C. penitentiary? Did he know that Clifford Olson had raped someone, that he had been attacked by other members of the protective custody unit within the B.C. penitentiary and in Prince Albert because of that attack on a young man at the B.C. penitentiary? These are very serious questions. Underlying them is whether or not there is collusion among the officials of the correctional system to protect certain inmates and clean up their files so they will appear to be better inmates in the eyes of certain officials in the future.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, for some months now the hon. member has been raising this general question about the extent to which the correctional service of Canada warns the police and municipalities to which offenders are being returned about their criminal records. The hon. member has not until tonight indicated that he was specifically interested in any particular offender. He tells me tonight that the offender in which he is interested is Clifford Olson and the trial about which he has a number of specific questions is not the Olson trial but the Marcoux trial. Indeed, I will look into all of these questions and do the best I can to

January 25, 1982
Adjournment Debate
furnish answers, bearing in mind that provincial court records are not within my jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, the questions which the hon. member asked are interesting and I am anxious to get to the bottom of them. However, I want to remind the hon. member, because it is sometimes contradicted in the media, that Clifford Olson at the time of the series of murders for which he was recently convicted was not a parolee. He was not under mandatory supervision. He was free because his warrant justifying his incarceration and justifying mandatory supervision had expired. He was free to go anywhere in Canada without reporting to the police or without reporting to members of the parole service or the correctional service of Canada. The kind of authority which the correctional service has over a person after his or her warrant has expired is much more limited.
I want to assure the hon. member, and through him the people of British Columbia, that the correctional service of Canada and the RCMP are far from being two solitudes and, whatever existed historically, there presently is a very close relationship not only with the RCMP but with all the police forces in Canada. In fact, my ministry originally sponsored a very successful joint committee, which is a national committee, bringing together senior officials of the correctional service of Canada and senior members of the police community. But there are also regional divisions of that organization. I believe over 40 meetings were held last year in the regions. One of the main purposes of these meetings is to exchange information about dangerous individuals known to the correctional service of Canada.
In addition to that, as I have indicated in answers to the House, the correctional service of Canada does provide information about offenders who are going into a community. Prison records are provided and telephone calls are made in serious cases to alert the police of the risk of an offender who is known to be dangerous, who was incarcerated and who is returning to a particular community. That is not only customary for the RCMP, but for all police forces. It does not do a service to criminal justice for the hon. member to create the impression that we are talking here about the old system of two solitudes where the correctional service never took any interest in people once they were back on the street. That is no longer the case.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO PAYMENT MADE TO CONVICTED MURDERER, CLIFFORD OLSON SUGGESTED RECOVERY OF FUNDS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, earlier today during the course of question period I raised certain serious questions with the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) concerning the Clifford Olson case, questions which are being asked by many thousands of Canadians from coast to coast about this black day in Canadian legal history.
I called upon the Solicitor General to order a full independent public inquiry into the circumstances of this payment and the manner in which the investigation was conducted. In addition, I urged the Solicitor General to make a very clear,
unequivocal statement in this House that never again in Canadian history would he, as Solicitor General, or his successors, authorize the payment of such blood money to a person suspected or accused of committing a crime, especially the most serious crime which can be committed in Canadian society, that is the taking of another person's life.
Since the announcement of this payment during the course of the trial of Clifford Olson and the announcement of the nature of the investigation and some of the questions raised about that investigation, the B.C. Attorney General, Allan Williams, was caught in a barefaced lie. The Solicitor General himself has made a number of blatantly contradictory statements.
At one point he said that he had the power to veto the payments made to the family of Clifford Olson. He indicated he was informed shortly after the decision was made; there was a reference at one point to "a couple of days". In any event, there was a clear statement that he had veto power over this decision.
However, it now turns out he was not informed until more than two weeks after the decision to authorize payments was in fact made, and after payments were made to the trust fund. How can he possibly suggest that at that point he could have vetoed this particular decision? He has said there was a convictable case at the point at which the decision was made to authorize payment. However, that evidence has been disputed not only by the B.C. attorney general, but also by the commissioner of the RCMP.
In addition, the Solicitor General will know as a lawyer that any evidence obtained either through fear of punishment or hope of reward would certainly be thrown out of court. That is a cardinal principle of our criminal law, and is confirmed in the charter of rights.
The Solicitor General indicated at one point that no federal money was paid to the family of Clifford Olson. He then said the federal amount was 44 per cent, which then became 75 per cent. In fact, Mr. Speaker, every penny of this money must be paid by the federal government under the terms of the contract between it and the province of British Columbia. Section 14 of that contract states very clearly that any ex gratia payments must be paid in full by the federal government.
What does the Solicitor General say in a classic case of buck passing? He says it is not his responsibility. He wants to leave it to the attorney general of British Columbia. The fact of the matter is that it was his responsibility to make the decision to authorize payment. Those funds are coming out of the federal treasury and it is, indeed, his responsibility under the RCMP Act to ensure that a major decision such as this is only taken with the consent of the federal Solicitor General.
There is a second aspect to this case which warrants investigation. I called upon the Solicitor General to assure Canadians that a payment such as that made to Clifford Olson would never be made again under similar circumstances, and that this should not be allowed to establish a precedent. There is a

fundamental rule in Canadian law that a criminal must not be allowed to profit from his crimes. This rule has been violated and a very dangerous precedent has been set. Twisted minds may decide to kill for profit. Others may be induced to confess to crimes they did not commit.
All of us understand the anguish that the parents felt in these circumstances. I am a member from British Columbia and I know the pressure on the police, but this kind of payment cannot be tolerated. I was approached by the parents of one of the murdered children who asked me why that man was able to profit from the death of their child?
Other questions must be raised in the course of an inquiry about the nature of this investigation. Why was Clifford Olson not under detailed and intensive surveillance from the moment he became a prime suspect on July 15, 1981? In view of his record and in view of the fact that he was a prime suspect, why was he not under the most intensive form of surveillance? Inspector Proke says, frankly, he cannot tell why the delay occurred. Other questions have been raised. Was Olson on the RCMP payroll at any point as an informer? Was there an accomplice working with Olson on some of these murders? Why was this man not behind bars in view of certain charges made against him and in view of his lengthy record. There are many questions which remain unanswered in the Clifford Olson saga, such as the circumstances of the payment and the manner in which the investigation was handled.
1 would very seriously suggest that if the Solicitor General does not respond to this strong outcry by Canadians from coast to coast and order a public inquiry to settle some of these serious questions, he will bring the office of the Solicitor General into disrepute and he will have no alternative but to resign forthwith.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has added very little to the questions which he raised in the House this afternoon during question period. I think I gave my answers to those questions at that time. I want to take advantage of the opportunity, however, to indicate why I think a public inquiry into the police investigation would be highly undesirable.
There were three or four prime suspects who were being watched by the police, and there were a great many other people who had accusations brought against them. If there were to be a public inquiry, the public would have to be informed as to who those other suspects were and what the evidence was against them, which was false evidence in some cases, and how the police weighed that evidence in making a decision as to whether it was Olson or whether it was them.
Adjournment Debate
One might say that we could bring the evidence forward but leave out the names of the suspect. However, if one leaves the names out and includes their addresses, places of business, and associates, which were all very important in assessing their possible responsibility in the matter, they would be identified. I think it would be extremely unfair to the other suspects of these murders, who were cleared when Olson was convicted, to bring forward the cases against them which led the police to consider them to be suspects.
If one wanted to assess how the police were doing, and why, until they charged Olson, they thought he might either be guilty or innocent, one would have to know what they thought they had against the other people. One would have to name them or give their names and addresses, which would amount to the same thing, in order to make it possible to review the judgment that the police were exercising in the case.
Then one would have to involve the parents of many, many children in the area where these crimes were committed, those parents who came forward and told the police their children had been the victims of sexual assaults of one kind or another. One would have to give their names in order that the public inquiry could understand why their evidence was important; or, if one left their names out, one would have to give their addresses or something of their descriptions, such as where they worked and how it was that these four suspects and others who were accused came into contact with them.
I think when one indicates what happens when a police report is made public, it is obvious why it should not be made public. If the parents of a child who was a victim or thought to be a victim of a sexual offence came to the police, knowing that in the following few weeks the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) would have the right to have that information made public and broadcast across the country, even if their names, their address and their places of work were omitted, what kind of public inquiry could we have?
This is a case where the attorney general of a province and the Solicitor General of Canada share a responsibility. Their duties are different, but they have this responsibility because it would be unfair and wrong, as well as disruptive and destructive of police operations, for inquiries of this sort to be made public. I think police work would be very seriously deteriorated if this information was made public, even with names and identifications expurgated to avoid prejudice. This just would not mean anything to anyone who wanted to assess it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

January 25, 1982


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
(See page 14268)

[Stage Direction]
Communications/ Communications	Foreign and Defence Policy/ Politique etrangere et defense
[Stage Direction]
Chairman, President
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
G. Regan
[Stage Direction]
Chairman President
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
M. MacGuigan
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman Vice-president
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
S. Joyal
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman Vice-president
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
G. Lamontagne
[Stage Direction]
Members, Membres
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
A.J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
.1. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Members Membres
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
A.-.l. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Sen./Sen.
[Stage Direction]
H.A. Olson
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
J.-L. Pepin
[Stage Direction]
Mr., M.
[Stage Direction]
A. Ouellct
[Stage Direction]
Mr./
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
H.E. Gray
[Stage Direction]
Sen. Sen.
[Stage Direction]
R.J. Perrault
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
E.F. Whelan
[Stage Direction]
M r., M.
[Stage Direction]
R. LcBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
Sen.
[Stage Direction]
Sen.
[Stage Direction]
R..I. Perrault
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
J.S. Fleming
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
R. LcBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
Y. Pinard "
[Stage Direction]
Mr./
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
.1. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. Mine
[Stage Direction]
.1. Erola
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
Sen. Sen.
[Stage Direction]
J. Austin
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
F. Fox
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
P. De Bane
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
J.S. Fleming
[Stage Direction]
Economic and Regional Devi
[Stage Direction]
[DOT]lopment/ De
[Stage Direction]
vclop/tentent
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
E. Lumley
[Stage Direction]
economique et regional
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
L. Axworthy
[Stage Direction]
Chairman President
[Stage Direction]
Sen./ Sen.
[Stage Direction]
H.A. Olson
[Stage Direction]
Mr./
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
C. Caccia
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman Vice-president
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Members/ Membres
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
A.J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
J.-L. Pepin
[Stage Direction]
Government Operations! Operations gouvernementales
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
J.C. Munro
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M. Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
H.E. Gray E.F. Whelan
[Stage Direction]
Chairman President
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M. Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
A. Ouellet R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman Vice-president
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
F'. Fox
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
F. Fox
[Stage Direction]
Members Membres
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
A.J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
P. De Bane
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
J.-L. Pepin
[Stage Direction]
Sen. Sen.
[Stage Direction]
H.R. Argue
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
/ M.
[Stage Direction]
A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
W. Rompkey
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
/ M.
[Stage Direction]
J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
C. Lapointe
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
/ M.
[Stage Direction]
P. De Bane
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
E. Lumley
[Stage Direction]
Sen
[Stage Direction]
. Sen.
[Stage Direction]
H R. Argue
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
G. Regan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
L. Axworthy
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
M.
[Stage Direction]
W. Rompkey
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. Mme
[Stage Direction]
J. Erola
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
, M.
[Stage Direction]
D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Sen./Sen.
[Stage Direction]
J. Austin
[Stage Direction]
Mr.
[Stage Direction]
/M.
[Stage Direction]
P. Cosgrove
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
C. Caccia
[Stage Direction]
M r.
[Stage Direction]
/M.
[Stage Direction]
B. Campbell
[Stage Direction]
January 25, 1982
[Stage Direction]
Labour Relations/ Relations cle travail	Public Service/ Function publique
[Stage Direction]
Chairman/ President
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M
[Stage Direction]
Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Chairman, President
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
P.E. Trudeau
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman/ Vice-president
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman, Vice-president
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
A.J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Members/ Membres
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
J.-L. Pepin
[Stage Direction]
Members Membres
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
J.-L. Pepin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
G. Regan
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
J.C. Munro
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
H. Gray
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
Sen. Sen.
[Stage Direction]
H R. Argue
[Stage Direction]
Mr./ M.
[Stage Direction]
G. Regan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
P. Bussieres
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
C. Lapointe
[Stage Direction]
Security anil Intelligence/ Seen rite et renseignetnenls
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
P. Cosgrove
[Stage Direction]
Chairman/ President
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
P.E. Trudeau
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
C. Caccia
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman Vice-president
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
A.J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Legislation anil House Planning/ Legislation et planijication
[Stage Direction]
Members/ Membres
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
parletnentaire
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
G. Lamontagne
[Stage Direction]
Chairman/ President
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
M. MacGuigan
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
R.P. Kaplan
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman Vice-president
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
L. Axworthy
[Stage Direction]
Members, Membres
[Stage Direction]
Sen./ Sen.
[Stage Direction]
H.A. Olson
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
E.F. Whelan
[Stage Direction]
Sen./Sen.
[Stage Direction]
R.J. Perrault
[Stage Direction]
Miss/ M me
[Stage Direction]
M. Begin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
G. Lamontagne
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
R.P. Kaplan
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
P. Bussieres
[Stage Direction]
Social Development/ Developpement social
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. Mme
[Stage Direction]
J. Erola
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
S. Joyal
[Stage Direction]
Chairman/ President
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman/ Vice-president
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
J.C. Munro
[Stage Direction]
Priorities anil Planning/ Priorites et planijication
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
J.S. Fleming
[Stage Direction]
Chairman/ President
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
P.E. Trudeau
[Stage Direction]
Members/ Membres
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
A.J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman/ Vice-president
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
A.J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Miss / Mme
[Stage Direction]
: M. Begin
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
F. Fox
[Stage Direction]
Members/ Membres
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
P. De Bane
[Stage Direction]
Sen./Sen.
[Stage Direction]
H.A. Olson
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
G. Regan
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
H.E. Gray
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
R.P. Kaplan
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
L. Axworthy
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
G. Regan
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
P. Cosgrove
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
M. MacGuigan
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. Mme J. Erola
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
J. S. Fleming
[Stage Direction]
Sen./Sen.
[Stage Direction]
J. Austin
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
C. Caccia
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Mr./ M.
[Stage Direction]
S. Joyal
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
L. Axworthy
[Stage Direction]
Mr./M.
[Stage Direction]
B. Campbell
[Stage Direction]
January 25, 1982
Special Committee of Council/ Comile special (lit Consei!
Western Affairs/Affaires cle I'Ottest
Chairman President
Members Membres
Chairman President
Vice-Chairman Vice-president Mr. M.
Members/ Membres
Alternates Suppleants
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Chairman President
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
L. Axworthy
[Stage Direction]
Sen. Sen.
[Stage Direction]
R.J. Perrault
[Stage Direction]
Members/ Membres
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
J.-L. Pepin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
I.C. Munro
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
W. Rompkey
[Stage Direction]
Sen. Sen.
[Stage Direction]
H.A. Olson
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
P. Bussieres
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
H.E. Gray
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
C. Lapointe
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
E.E'. Whelan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
P. Cosgrove
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. Mine
[Stage Direction]
.1. Erola
[Stage Direction]
Sen. Sen.
[Stage Direction]
R.J. Perrault
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
C. Caccia
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
S. Joval
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
.1. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
B. Campbell
[Stage Direction]
Sen. Sen.
[Stage Direction]
H.R. Argue
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
J.S. Fleming
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
E. Lumley
[Stage Direction]
resor
[Stage Direction]
Sen. Sen.
[Stage Direction]
.1. Austin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
A.J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
Sen. Sen.
[Stage Direction]
H.R. Argue
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
W. Rompkey
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
E. I.umley
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
1st Alternate
[Stage Direction]
lcl suppleant
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
P. Cosgrove
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
C. Lapointe
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
P. De Bane
[Stage Direction]
Sen. Sen.
[Stage Direction]
.1. Austin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M.
[Stage Direction]
B. Campbell
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 26, 1982