1982-01-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, Randy Ludlow has been declared to be a danger to the public by two psychiatrists and one clinical psychologist. He is known to have associated with Clifford Olson for four months last summer. His appearance resembles the composite published of a suspected accomplice of Olson. He was due to stand trial yesterday on another charge, but never appeared. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Solicitor General explain to this House why the justice system allows a dangerous suspect such as this to walk the streets.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
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; 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.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to commend the government for wisely not obliging the Canadian beef industry to participate in the forced metric conversion program. Allowing cattlemen to continue to buy and sell under the imperial system will protect our valuable trade with the United States and eliminate weights and measures confusion in the market place. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That the government reconsider its forced metric conversion program in 1982 and extend the same exemption it granted to the beef industry to the retail food sector.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Considering that since the federal government has failed to take any action, more than 30 mayors of municipalities around Mirabel have decided to take steps in order to get a decision on the airport area problem, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That the government take immediate action to deal with the problems of unused farmland, the industrial park scandal and the viability of the airport itself.

January 27, 1982


Madam Speaker:: 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.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, thousands of workers of all ages are sad, depressed, and frustrated. They were working hard at their jobs to build a good country and a heritage for their wives and children when suddenly, right out of the blue, on November 12, 1981, the Minister of Finance blasted their dreams and hopes-no more dental care for their wives and kids, no more trips each year on passes supplied by their company, no more chances to buy shares and become an employer, no more company homes at reasonable rentals, no more of anything but taxes, taxes, taxes. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That this House urges the Minister of Finance to put a ray of sunshine back into the lives of these workers by immediately packing up his ill-begotten budget and vanishing into oblivion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, in a motion presented yesterday the New Democratic Party called for the government to outlaw extra billing in Alberta, to set up an inquiry to present proposals for the enforcement of national standards for health care, and to withdraw the finance minister's proposals for cutbacks in federal transfer payments to the provinces. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House call on the New Democratic Party to cleanse itself before telling others to clean up their act by calling on their Saskatchewan counterparts to ban extra billing in that NDP province.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. As a result of the November budget, owners and employees of automobile dealerships across the country are beginning to experience severe financial difficulty. The dealers are losing revenue because of a drop in their leasing business. Employees receiving financial assistance from their employers for the lease of a car will now be taxed on almost the entire monthly leasing charge, and dealership employees provided with a demonstrator car to advertise their product will now be taxed on the use of the vehicle. In light of the fact that this industry is already suffering the financial woes of low sales due to high interest rates I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Minister of Finance make an immediate change to his budget and cancel these punitive measures which are hurting the people involved.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the government's policy of enticing the provinces with cushy financial deals into buying CANDU reactors for the production of electricity for export to the United States will result in unnecessary health, safety and environmental dangers for all Canadians-and perhaps some Americans as well-and whereas the government secrecy concerning financing agreements being offered to potential CANDU reactor customers abroad also shows a complete disregard for the rights of the Canadian electorate to know, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House call for an independent public inquiry into the health and safety aspects of the Canadian nuclear industry, as well as to examine the squandering of billions of taxpayers' dollars by the government in a hopeless attempt to prop up this languishing loser.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
January 27, 1982


THE BUDGET
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, the budget proposes to move federal sales tax from the manufacturing to the wholesale level. In addition to generating huge amounts of additional revenue for the government and causing retail prices to increase, this is an example of several measures in the budget that are bringing about major tax reforms without prior warning. Therefore I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the government refer this topic to committee for proper consideration by everybody involved so that the full impact of this tax change can be fully discussed before the measure is finally implemented.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Because it is inconsistent for the Government of Canada to enshrine cherished human and political rights in our new Constitution and to be indifferent to violations of human and national rights of the people in Poland and generally in eastern Europe, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the Prime Minister condemn the military junta in Poland for violating human rights in complete disregard of the provisions of the Helsinki agreement and for the suppression of the Solidarity trade union.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity for small businesses in Canada. Small businesses are experiencing a growing problem of collecting accounts receivable, and one of the worst offenders
Oral Questions
when it comes to slow payment is the federal government. Payment for goods and services sold to the federal government is often not received for three, four or more months and, to add insult to injury, no interest is paid on accounts outstanding more than 30 days. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson):
That this House direct the Minister of Supply and Services to remedy this burden the federal government is placing on Canada's small businesses.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance concerning the tax measures which will affect senior Canadians who are receiving retirement income. The minister will remove the $1,000 exemption for those pensioners who receive other income and contribute to registered retirement savings plans. Many of these pensioners have retired from the armed forces, the police, and the public service, with very modest pensions.
Where is the justice in taxing senior citizens who are trying to provide for their old age? Will he explain how taxing a Canadian who must supplement his or her pension income and postpone real retirement can result in more equity in the tax system? Why should Parliament punish senior Canadians who want to maintain their independence? Do we really need that kind of revenue?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has made a very stirring appeal to consider that particular case of the deduction that is available for retired persons. The main objective of that change in the budget proposal was to eliminate that deduction for persons who are not retired. I will certainly listen to the hon. member's representations very carefully when we have those matters in the committee of the Whole.


TAXPAYER STATISTICS
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, we are pleased with the conciliatory tone of the Minister of Finance, but I wish he would promise here and now to make a

January 27, 1982
Oral Questions
change in that particular provision. Senior Canadians are the ones who are affected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: I want to tell the minister also that it was not retired business executives who came to our special committee with this concern, it was the Consumers Association of Canada. It is the little man who can be hurt by this provision. That is what we are concerned with, Madam Speaker.
We want to know about the minister's statistics. The minister has said in this House that 12 million Canadians will pay less tax but seven million Canadians will pay tax on health plans. Whose statistics are right? The statistics of the Canadian Labour Congress, or the statistics of the minister? I would like the minister to confirm the statistics and tell us who will pay more taxes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, all the facts are stated in the tables that were presented with the budget. They show that almost 12 million Canadians, as a result of the budget, will pay less tax in 1982 than in 1981, that about 3.5 million Canadians will pay about the same level of taxes, and that about 800,000 Canadian taxpayers will pay more taxes. Those are the statistics that are in the tax tables. They are public knowledge. If the Canadian Labour Congress and other bodies can contest these statistics, then I will examine their contestations. However, I believe the statistics to be accurate and to reflect the actual situation.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: They have already contested them.


MINISTER S BUDGETARY STATEMENTS
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, it is very difficult for any Member of Parliament to argue with the minister's statistics, but Canadians will know in ensuing tax years whether more Canadians or fewer Canadians will be paying tax, and that will be the test.
However, I want to know in a more general way how the minister can explain some items in the budget. In the minister's 1980 budget speech he said that Canada had one of the best tax systems in the world. He said that in 1980.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: Last year, 1981, the minister said that many Canadians find the tax system unfair, and he agrees with them. Who are those Canadians? Are they the backbenchers in the Liberal Party who thought the new tax measures were needed?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid that we did not get the question. I would like the hon. member to repeat his question, but only his question.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, it is difficult to phrase a question when we have contradictory remarks in two budgets. I will simply ask the minister which remark is true?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, there is nothing contradictory, in my mind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It seems to me that even the best can be improved. I stated that our system was among the best. It is among the best, but it still can be improved, and that is what I was attempting to do.


QUERY RESPECTING LIFE INSURANCE POLICYHOLDERS
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. One of the areas in which the minister's November budget created unnecessary financial hardship for Canadians is the area dealing with life insurance. Could the minister tell the House why the approximately nine million low and middle-income policyholders who have life insurance are now being harassed by the government? Why are they being discouraged from protecting their families and their own security in retirement? Why are they being punished by being asked to pay tax on their policies before they receive any cash benefit whatever?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am pleased the hon. member raised that question because it gives me an opportunity to straighten the record. The fact is that no existing policyholder in any part of Canada is affected by the budget provisions of November 12. Let me repeat that: no existing policyholders. That is the fact. I hope that the message gets out. 1 can assure the hon. member that no existing policyholder is harassed, punished, affected, or impacted by taxes because all of them, all of the existing policyholders, are not touched whatever. I would like that to be put out.


Mr. Pinard:: Read the budget.


REQUEST THAT PROVISIONS BE WITHDRAWN
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware his predecessor brought in something similar and withdrew it. I hope the minister will decide to withdraw entirely any tax on the life insurance industry, RRSPs and the like, because no one-as a life insurance agent I can emphasize this-in their right minds would be investing in any form of life insurance because of high interest rates available in other forms.
Will the minister withdraw anything and everything he has agreed to or considered doing regarding life insurance, annuities, or anything else?
January 27, 1982


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Madam Speaker, as long as the hon. member is now satisfied there is no impact whatsoever on existing policyholders, then I believe we have made some progress.
The hon. member has referred to the general provisions affecting the life insurance industry, and I believe his question deserves a careful answer. The first point is that I suggested on December 18 that, subject to appropriate parliamentary arrangements, I was prepared to send that question to a standing committee for examination. Second, I have undertaken through my officials to have, and indeed already have had consultations, with the insurance industry, and it is my firm objective to reach some conclusions with them which hopefully would meet both their difficulties and my concerns as Minister of Finance.
These meetings have taken place. Just this week I had a discussion with one of the leaders of the industry whose view was that it might be possible to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion. So there are two avenues open to the hon. member to reflect upon, instead of asking me to withdraw the important changes which are to the benefit of the people of Canada.


Walter David Baker: We are seeing another retreat from Moscow.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Today in the United States, analysts, in response to President Reagan's State of the Union Address last night, are now saying interest rates there are going to go up. 1 ask the minister, should this occur, will he on behalf of the Government of Canada assure the people of Canada that we will not pursue that disastrous economic policy here?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, first of all the hon. member's question is hypothetical, and I assure him it is not my intention to adopt any disastrous economic policies.


An hon. Member:: Other than the one you have.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have expressed more than once our concern about the interest rate policy being pursued in the United States. On the occasion of the Summit in Ottawa last summer all the representatives drew similar concerns to the attention of the United States. They have been restated since that time, but it seems to me that we cannot predict what will happen in the United States except 1 did, on Monday in Toronto, express my concern about that possibility in certain circumstances in the United States.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I did not ask the minister to predict what would happen in the United States; I just asked him to make for once an unequivocal assertion that if interest rates go up in the United States, as many analysts now say they will as a result of President Reagan's address last night, the Government of Canada will not follow that policy. It is pretty straightforward. Surely even the minister could respond to that.
However, I would like to move to a different aspect of the government's policy.
* *
*


THE BUDGET
John Edward Broadbent: The minister was busy, in his speech yesterday, boasting about the number of Canadians who were going to get a tax cut. He did not tell us which Canadians, or how much. Will the minister confirm that the average working Canadian will receive a tax cut of about $4 a week, but that as a result of the reduction of the tax rate in the top two income categories, a Canadian who earns $250,000 a year will get an actual reduction of $400 a week from this government? If that is so, is that his concept of Liberal justice for the people of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker. I could not confirm these false statistics used by the hon. member for Oshawa. Yesterday I laid on the record the impact of these tax changes which were made in the budget, such as tax indexing, marginal rate, and so on. The impact of that upon the average industrial wage of $22,000-


John Edward Broadbent: $4 a week!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -in a one-wage-earner family of four members will be a tax cut of $650-


Mr. Wilson:: What about energy, Allan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and that is not bad.


John Edward Broadbent: It is not bad for some, but when the government gives ten times that amount to people who are millionaires, at least some people in this country think that is a little unjust, whatever the Liberal Party may think.
* *
*


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: My last question goes to the Prime Minister, because both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said this week that further govern-

January 27, 1982
Oral Questions
ment investment in job-creation programs at this time would not be desirable because of the impact such investment would have on the deficit. During the last election campaign the Prime Minister said that "dealing with the deficit must not be at the expense of lost jobs at a time when the economy is slowing down".
Considering that our current ratio of deficit to the gross national product is the same now as it was 12 years ago, how can he square his election promise that deficit concern would be subordinate to job creation with the government policy as expressed in the last two days in the House, which policy means, in effect, that no matter how many are unemployed in Canada, the government has no intention of creating some job investment programs which would put Canadians back to work?


An hon. Member:: Oh, you'd be surprised.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Oshawa is falling into his usual habit of putting up straw men and then knocking them down.


John Edward Broadbent: I'm talking about one!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He is ascribing positions to the government which it never took, nor did the Minister of Finance, nor did I. Concerning the priority of not solving our problems on the backs of the workers, that election promise still stands. When the hon. member quotes us as saying that we will not invest in jobs, surely he is fabricating a statement-


John Edward Broadbent: Except that's not what the quotation was. Listen to the quotation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, I will listen to the quotation. Let us hear it again.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, let us hear the quotation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. I thought the Right Hon. Prime Minister had finished his answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crombie:: Same rules for everybody, eh?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I was in the process of indicating the moneys which we are and will be spending to create jobs. I was interrupted by the Leader of the New Democratic Party saying that, in some sense, he wanted to repeat the quotation. I was prepared to accede to him; but he does not want to take that opportunity. Let me tell him that-


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, 1 do!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -even in the budget, even in the white paper which we tabled at the time of the budget, even in the various speeches of the various ministers, we have indicated that
literally hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent of federal budget money in order to create jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just for western transportation alone, $1,350 million will be spent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Double-track!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To help rehabilitate the textile, clothing and shoe industries-


Mr. Epp:: Out west?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -some $350 million will be spent. To assist the pulp, paper and wood industry and rehabilitate the shipbuilding industry, some $350 million will be spent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The figures can go on. I know that this is not the time to enumerate them. But how can the hon. member say that we are not spending any money to create jobs? This is pure invention of his twisted mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: On a further and brief supplementary, the hon. member for Oshawa.


ELECTION CAMPAIGN COMMITMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, just in case the Prime Minister is interested in the truth, and 1 want to quote him carefully, because I am quoting him accurately, and 1 hope he will reply to the substance of the question, during the last election campaign he said that "dealing with the deficit must not be at the expense of lost jobs at a time when the economy is slowing down". The Prime Minister is nodding affirmatively. He agrees with that quotation. The other day, in debate, in the House-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question!


John Edward Broadbent: -the Prime Minister, and then the Minister of Finance, in response to questions, indicated that the current level of deficit was too high for more spending to take place in job creation.
My question to the Prime Minister is straightforward. Since he made this comment and promise in the 1980 election, and since it is clear, as the Minister of Finance indicated in his speech in Toronto on Monday, that unemployment is following from this-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that I permitted an additional question, but I asked him to be brief, and I would like him to be just that.


John Edward Broadbent: I simply wanted to be clearly understood, because I want the Prime Minister to have a fair chance.
By refusing to spend more because it will increase the deficit, is the Prime Minister not reneging on a commitment that he made in the 1980 election campaign when he said that he-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Order!


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the quotation from the campaign was to the effect that we would not reduce the deficit or we would not solve our budgetary problems by taking away or destroying jobs. That is the effect of the quote which he just read. I repeated to the hon. member the other day that when we are budgeting for more than a $10 billion deficit, it is obvious that we are not concerned with balancing the budget as much as we are concerned with creating opportunity for investment and workers. That is why there are literally, once again, billions of dollars which are planned for spending by various departments to create jobs and stimulate economic growth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The only recourse that the Leader of the New Democratic Party can take is to say to spend more. We can say we would spend more and put the money on paper, but right now there are hundreds of billions of unspent dollars which are going to be spent in the plans that have been laid before Parliament.


An hon. Member:: Hundreds of billions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let us spend that money and then, if the hon. member wants to say more, we can look at it again.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to move from the world of fantasy land to the world of Poland.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: On Monday when the Prime Minister was asked about Poland and his earlier approval of the actions of the Polish government, he said, and I quote from Monday's Hansard:
I do not believe that in advance we can or should condemn the use of troops by any of our friends-
Oral Questions
Apparently the Polish government is his friend.
The worse result in this case would have been intervention by the Soviet Union.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has since said the Soviet Union has intervened:
-once again we must ask ourselves if there was a better scenario.
Have the Prime Minister and his government, who have now had 46 days to decide this, yet decided whether there was a better scenario than the imposition of martial law and the crushing of human rights in Poland and doing away with the rights of the trade union, Solidarity? Has that been decided, or what is the Prime Minister going to tell the world when he appears on the television program Friday or Saturday night? Was that the best scenario, or was there an even better scenario?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have asked this question of various people, including the representative of the Polish Congress that I met the other day. 1 asked the hon. member what was his scenario. I have indicated that if the alternative was Soviet invasion, it was better to have martial law if that prevented Soviet invasion. My statement still stands. It is hypothetical. No one knows if the Soviets would have invaded or not.
One does know that the objective of all the western nations for the past two years has been to warn the Soviet Union against invasion of Poland, and against military occupation of that country. To that extent we have succeeded in preventing that worse scenario. I would like to hear the hon. member say that he would prefer to see Soviet troops occupying Poland and that that would be better for the Polish people than to have the Polish people themselves attempt to prevent that eventuality.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CONDEMN IMPOSITION OF MARTIAL LAW
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has confirmed that what happened in Poland was the best scenario, in his opinion. In my opinion it was the worst scenario.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: There was no threat of invasion by the U.S.S.R. The government's position is confused and contradictory. Apparently the Secretary of State for External Affairs has more backbone than the Prime Minister, who is positively pusillanimous in connection with Poland. My question to the Prime Minister is this. Last Monday the Prime Minister said, and I again quote from Hansard:
I will have to see in what way that martial law proceeds-
He was still not prepared to condemn martial law. Later that afternoon he met with the Canadian Polish Congress and said martial law should be relaxed. What is now the position-


An hon. Member:: What is yours?

January 27, 1982
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Our position is that we are totally opposed to martial law in Poland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: We think this government should represent Canadians and condemn it, and not approve it as the Prime Minister did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is going beyond what is permissible during a question. I cannot be any more lenient with him if he does not put his question in five words, and not more.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Will the Prime Minister now condemn the imposition of martial law and send a stern diplomatic note to the U.S.S.R. and to Poland opposing any continuation of martial law?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nielsen:: Let's have a five-word answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think it is clear that the hon. member's position is indefensible, even from the point of view of the Polish people. I quote him. The hon. member for St. John's West said that in his opinion what was happening in Poland was the worst scenario. I do not believe that. I believe the worst scenario would have been for the Soviet army with its tanks to have marched into Poland and crushed the Polish people. That, I think, would have been worse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Now that the Prime Minister has announced the intended dismantling of DREE so there will no longer be a department of government concerned solely with regional economic development in Canada, will the minister tell the House whether, under his new department, the regional development incentives, formerly administered by DREE, will be available all across Canada, or will they be restricted to certain geographic areas?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, what is happening is not in any way a downgrading or downplaying of the efforts and focus of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. At the present time, and until there is appropriate legislation, the department continues to offer its help and incentive in specific areas across Canada.
I anticipate that once the activities of DREE and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce are integrated there will not be any lesser focus on the regional imperatives followed by DREE. If anything, there will be an enhancement of that in the interest of those areas and therefore of the entire country.


PAYMENT OF INCENTIVE GRANTS
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, it is difficult to see how the enhancement will take place when the Prime Minister announces that there will be no more money. Is it the intention of the minister to pay development incentive grants to Canadian-owned firms only?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, FIR A will follow the law in this regard to offer grants to those who will offer net economic benefits to the less advantaged regions of the country. That is the purpose, to enhance economic activity and permanent job creation in less advantaged areas of our country. This is what we are doing now and will continue doing, and our intention is to do it in a more effective and focused manner than before.


MANPOWER
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister is probably aware of a report from the Ontario government, the Manpower Commission, which forecast that Ontario faces a shortage of between 38,000 and 48,000 highly skilled workers in the next five years. Could the minister indicate what our government is prepared to do to prevent this provincial forecast and overcome this critical shortage?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the report that was prepared for the Ontario Manpower Commission simply enforces findings that were put forth by the parliamentary task force that was chaired by our colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. It simply indicates to us that it is a major priority, and in response to that task force and other representations we put forward in the first week of January a proposal for a new national training program which would shift the priority of federal support into those areas where the skill shortages are greatest. At the same time, the proposal is to
January 27, 1982

Oral Questions
provide assistance to modernize the training institutions and	[English]
the industrial training programs across Canada.	construction of vessels in Canada
We believe very strongly that it is important to establish a national set of priorities so that we can address the problem not just in Ontario but across the country. We think that is one of the most effective ways to meet both the demand for skilled labour and also to provide a major stimulus for economic growth in Canada.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion. My question concerns an announcement made yesterday by Gulf Canada that a contract had been signed with Japanese shipyards for the construction of an icebreaker to be used in the Canadian Arctic. When the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, he promised to set up a program for the purpose of keeping shipbuilding projects in Canada. According to our calculations, shipping companies that have had ships built outside the country during the last two years have made Canadian workers lose 10,000 person-years. Could the minister inform us whether our figures are correct and could he also tell us why the government has as yet failed to develop an effective marine industry policy and why it has actually created more jobs in Japan than in Canada at a time when many workers in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia need these jobs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, 1 shall be glad to check the figures provided by my hon. colleague as well as the facts on the contract that Gulf Canada is said to have signed with Japanese shipbuilders. I remember that not long ago, Gulf Canada announced it was giving out contracts for the construction of ships in Canadian dockyards, and the hon. member may recall that last August I announced a new government policy that would be aimed at giving Canadian industries and workers a chance to compete on an equal basis for participation in the economic and industrial spin-offs of our megaprojects. This policy is being implemented and we have almost finished work on a policy to stimulate shipbuilding in Canada by Canadian industries. I feel that we are making considerable progress and that this will continue.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that month after month, in spite of the minister's announcements and good intentions, we see ship after ship and project after project going offshore. Unfortunately, we have not seen good delivery.
Could the minister give us some indication when ships will be built in Canada, particularly in the province of Quebec where there is talk about shutting down a major shipyard because they need a project such as the one being built in Japan?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, as I said just before Christmas, Gulf is giving contracts to Canadian shipyards to build ships for its offshore activity. We have recently given substantial assistance to companies such as Burrard Yarrows in British Columbia, Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company in New Brunswick, and the Halifax shipyard in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to extend their facilities to enable them to be more competitive and to build more of the vessels for offshore and world activities. We intend to continue doing that with this effort buttressed by our recently announced program to ensure on a full, fair and competitive basis, industrial spin-offs from our megaprojects to companies in Canada and Canadian workers. I think we are making a substantial effort, and we will be adding to that effort for workers and shipyards in every part of our country.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It concerns the Clifford Olson case. As I mentioned in a motion under Standing Order 43, a known suspected accomplice is loose on the streets. On October 16 the Solicitor General told my colleague from Central Nova that he was fully aware of the circumstances of the Olson case. 1 have known for some time that this suspected accomplice was about, and immediately reported it to the authorities.
I would now ask the minister, without giving any disclaimers about provincial responsibility, and knowing full well that he cannot be involved in the day to day investigation, if he is now fully informed about the Olson case and what action he has taken about the suspected accomplice.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I am not responsible for the laying of charges, particularly in offences that are under the Criminal Code to be administered under the responsibility of the Crown in the provinces. The hon. member mentioned, in his motion under Standing Order 43, that there were outstanding charges against Mr. Ludlow. I

January 27, 1982
Oral Questions
do not think the hon. member should invite me to make statements that might prejudice a fair trial.


INQUIRY INTO MANDATORY SUPERVISION
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, for some time now the Solicitor General has been conducting an inquiry into the effectiveness of mandatory supervision. In light of the new cause for concern across Canada due to the Olson case about the effectiveness of the entire justice system, would the Solicitor General first of all tell us if he has completed his inquiry into the effectiveness of mandatory supervision and, in light of the concern of Canadians, will he now extend that inquiry into a full public and independent inquiry into the effectiveness of the entire justice system?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that at the time of the offences which were the subject of the conviction of Clifford Olson, he was not under mandatory supervision. His warrant had expired and he was a free man.
As to the question of the study under way on mandatory supervision, that study has been completed and I have consulted with the interested members of the private sector, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and many other groups. 1 have their views, and I am planning to go to cabinet shortly with proposals for change.
Again, I would remind the hon. member that mandatory supervision is in the law which was established by this Parliament. Neither the Solicitor General nor any other official has the authority to change those rules outside Parliament, so that whatever changes I propose and are accepted by the cabinet will have to be brought forward to this House. When they are brought forward, which I expect in the not too distant future, I hope they will receive more prompt consideration than some of the other important changes to the criminal justice system I have brought forward in legislation to this House and which have been stalled here.


USE OF TRUTH-INDUCING DRUGS
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I remind him that while Mr. Olson was out on the street he was wanted on outstanding charges in Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Williams Lake.
In view of the unusual circumstances which have arisen here, and certain questions having been raised about methods in certain areas of the administration of justice, and the perception that there were parts of the scenario about which the Solicitor General was not fully informed, has he ever been informed by his advisers whether sodium pentothal or truth-inducing drugs have been used on witnesses or accused persons?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, that is a very general question. I am aware of the use and value of that drug, but I would want to have a specific question before giving a specific answer.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I would like to ask him whether a study has been made as to the impact of transferring federal sales tax from the manufacturing to the wholesale level on the residents of northern and remote regions of our country. As the minister knows, most of the high cost of living in the north is associated with freight. The practice now, of course, will be that northerners will have to pay federal sales tax on one of the main components of their high cost of living, namely, freight. Has a study been undertaken into the cost to northerners of that particular provision in the budget, and can the minister report on it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, we have attempted to assess the general impact upon the economy of these changes to the sales tax. It should be made clear to hon. members that there will be a great deal of opportunity to consider these changes and to examine their impacts before the legislation will be brought in and before it will be enacted.


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN POLICY
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, as the minister knows, neither in his budget nor in his statement has he dealt with the whole question of northern benefits, knowing full well that in some areas of our country the cost of the most essential items is sometimes two and three times what it is in the more populated regions of our country and that there is in place a certain tax remission or remission order. Can the minister tell us what terms of reference will be used to develop a policy which will bring about a greater degree of equity and fairness with respect to taxation on northerners generally? What he has done so far has been to place an additional burden on northerners by virtue of moving the sales tax from the manufacturing to the wholesale level, knowing full well that there are very few manufacturing facilities in the north. Most goods are shipped to wholesalers before they are distributed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the general effect of the changes in the sales tax we are proposing will be to benefit domestic manufacturers but, as the hon. member will recall, we did extend the remission order for an additional year. As I stated in the budget papers, it is my intention to examine what alternative instruments can be put in place in order to meet the
January 27, 1982

requirements of that part of the country, such as an expenditure program rather than through the tax system.


THE BUDGET
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. It relates to the budget proposal whereby the minister will now assess to car salespersons 30 per cent of the wholesale value of the demonstrator cars they use in the course of selling cars. The minister knows that the car business has been in a slump over the last few years. We obviously want that business to increase.
In view of the fact that in December the average wholesale price of a car was $10,000, which adds $3,000 to the average taxable income of these salespersons, is the minister considering withdrawing that provision from the budget, or at least reducing that amount of taxation in order to reflect more closely the state of that industry?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker. As I have stated in reply to a number of other representations, we will have an opportunity to consider the impact of all these measures in the very long debate which has been previewed for us by the Leader of the Opposition.


FINANCE
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. On December 18 the minister again hid behind a stock answer and said that he would deal with these tax provisions with equity and fairness. Regarding the provision of 30 per cent of taxable income for car salespersons, and specifically in view of the state of the industry at this time-for example, there are 1,200 car salespersons in Manitoba alone, so it is a large number of people who are affected-could the minister explain why, if it is dealing with fairness and equity, his own department has submitted a letter to car salesmen and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association saying that road expenses for these people will be taxed retroactively to 1979 and 1980? These are road expenses which had been accruing and had been used to sell automobiles. Why is the minister now going back to 1979 and 1980 in order to tax these people on road expenses which previously had been allowed?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, indeed it is the intention of the government
Oral Questions
to deal in fairness and equity both in the matter of law and in the matter of the application of the law. With regard to the matter about which the hon. member talks, 1 will certainly look into that because I can assure the hon. member it is not our intention to put an unfair burden on people. It is, indeed, our intention to deal with them with fairness and equity.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and it also deals with equity and fairness. In the last election campaign the Liberal Party made this promise:
The Liberals are committed to reduce poverty in Canada and to ensuring economic and social fairness for all Canadians.
How does the minister square this promise with the recent report from the National Council on Welfare which shows that some three million Canadians still live in poverty in Canada, that over half of all single pensioners over the age of 70 live in poverty, and that the distribution of income in this country has not changed since 1951? Can the minister tell us when we can expect programs to eradicate poverty in Canada?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is addressing one of the constant problems in any society, and he wants me to solve it now when we also have a tight economic situation. I do not think his question is serious or responsible in that respect.
1 can send the hon. member recent statistics on the fight against poverty in Canada. 1 discussed this with university students in Toronto two days ago. Those statistics show that over recent years the rate of absolute real poverty in Canada has decreased from 20 per cent to 12 per cent.
Of course there is still work to be done. What we have accomplished up until now has been to index fully-at a cost of millions of dollars-the Child Tax Credit, for example, which is now almost $300 non-taxable per child. In the coming months this will go to thousands of mothers of families who are most in need at the present time.


REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN BENEFITS PAID TO SINGLE WOMEN OVER 65 YEARS OF AGE
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance knows-or should know-that the vast majority of single women over age 65 live in poverty. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has certainly publicly stated that fact. Will the Minister of Finance agree to bring in amendments to his budget to use some of the additional revenue the government will gain from both the energy agreement and from additional taxation to increase immediately benefits for those single women over age 65 who are living in
14378

January 27, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Deans
poverty and who rely on welfare to receive an adequate retirement income?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I would like to make one correction to the statement of the hon. member. These people do not receive welfare. They receive the Federal Guaranteed Income Supplement which is more than the amount of welfare payments, which are provincial. As soon as we can-when the economy picks up again-we will, as our first priority, increase their monthly benefits again. The description the hon. member makes is false. I should like to add that he should also address the problem of those from age 60 to 65. If the provinces wanted to-if Ontario decides tomorrow to bring the welfare payment to a decent level, which is not the case to date, we would immediately pay back 50 per cent of that. But it cannot be a federal initiative; it must come from the province.


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


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise on what I consider to be a very important matter of privilege. I wish to place before the House a situation which I believe, when carefully considered, constitutes not only a breach of privilege of a Member of Parliament and a contempt of Parliament, but is fundamentally an act of illegality.
I anticipate that a claim may be made that there is precedent which justifies the act which I am about to place before you. I hope to be able to deal with that claim should it arise, however, by referring to certain case law that is already in existence and available both to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House.
I am sure that you are aware that, as a result of the budget brought forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen), certain taxing measures have now been implemented in this country in advance of any law having been passed by Parliament.
I want to suggest that if there is any doubt about the authenticity of that claim one need only call, as my office did, to the Department of National Revenue to ascertain-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has now been talking for a few minutes but has not given me any indication yet of the basis of his question of privilege. I would ask him to state that forthwith and to elaborate upon it for a few minutes if he feels that he needs to, but I must know the basis of the question of privilege.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the privilege I raise is that there is an act in Canada at the moment, that a procedure is
being followed in Canada at the moment, which imposes a tax for which no approval has been given by Parliament and regarding which members of Parliament, in the exercise of their duty, have been ignored. The opportunity for me as a Member of Parliament adequately to represent not only my own view but the views of the people of Canada with regard to the appropriateness of the measure currently in force in the country has not been afforded me. I therefore claim the privilege that 1 have to be given an opportunity in Parliament to deal with acts of Parliament in advance of their implementation.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member seems to be bringing up a question of the legality of certain things which have been implemented by the government. I would remind the hon. member that the Speaker is in no way capable of determining the legality of certain actions. If the hon. member feels something illegal has taken place, the appeal, of course, is not to the Speaker but is available in some other form.


Ian Deans: If you will permit me, Madam Speaker, I would point out that the illegality of the act goes without saying. The question of whether or not I am being given an opportunity to adequately represent my constituents and the people of Canada in dealing with tax measures that the government may or may not bring forward some day, legally or illegally, is not the issue. The issue is that as a Member of Parliament representing people in this country who are having money illegally taken out of their pay packet by employers all across the country, 1 have not had an opportunity to express the concerns of those people in the House of Commons.
I simply ask, Madam Speaker, that you allow me two minutes to explain the point.
There is case law which quite specifically states that it is not appropriate to collect a tax for which there is no law in force. I would refer you, Madam Speaker, to the case in the British Parliament in 1913 of Bowles v. The Bank of England. In that case the Bank of England collected a tax on behalf of the government of England for which there was no law. In the judgment-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is obviously arguing along lines which I cannot accept as being the basis of a question of privilege.


Walter David Baker: He has made a good case but it is in the wrong court.


Madam Speaker:: That is right. The case might be a good one but it is not a question of privilege. Unless the hon. member can demonstrate to me that he has a question of privilege as defined by our rules, I am afraid I will not be able to recognize him further. I would ask him not to pursue the line of argument he has started because that indicates to me quite clearly that he does not have the basis for a question of privilege.


Ian Deans: Then let me ask, Madam Speaker, whether it is a privilege of a Member of Parliament to be able to deal with
January 27, 1982

legislation proposed by the government before that legislation is enacted. Is that not a privilege of a Member of Parliament? Is that not one of the reasons why we are sent here-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: -that there be no taxation without representation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Is that not a privilege of a Member of Parliament? I want to suggest that if it is not a privilege of a member to be able to deal with legislation in advance of its implementation, then what in heaven's name is the Parliament of Canada here for?
I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that it is my firm belief that as a member of this House I have not been given the opportunity to deal with a taxing measure and that taxing measure has already been put into force as a result of a directive given by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) to employers from coast to coast.
I suggest that it is a contempt of this Parliament for a minister to allow his ministry to put a law into force in advance of its being dealt with in principle by this House of Commons. I suggest further that it is a contempt of my privilege as a member to tax my constituents without a law authorizing that tax which has been passed by this House of Commons. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that it is clear that, notwithstanding a claim that this has been done in this way for centuries, the truth of the matter is in the final statement of the summation in the judgment I referred to, where it is quite clearly stated:
It was finally settled there could be no taxation in this country except under authority of an act of Parliament, and no practice or custom, however prolonged or however acquiesced in on the part of-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If it is the contention of the hon. member that that case resembles the one which he makes now, then he should bring it before the courts and not to the Speaker as a question of privilege. 1 am afraid that 1 definitely have to rule that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain does not have a question of privilege based on what he has just exposed to me.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to raise a question of privilege which to some extent is related fairly closely to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).
As a member of this Parliament I was elected by my constituents to represent-


Walter David Baker: They may reconsider that.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may not refer to a question upon which I have just ruled. I know that he wanted to elaborate on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, but in light of the ruling
Privilege-Mr. Deans
which I have just made, he must know that it is not permissible.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I would in no way wish to question Your Honour's ruling.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: However, Your Honour stated that, on the basis of information heard from the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, a question of privilege did not arise. I am not questioning that ruling, but I have further information which I would-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Svend Johannes Robinson: This government is arrogant. We are Members of Parliament and we have a right to be heard.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. No one will deny that the hon. member has a right to be heard, but the right to be heard in the House is subject to certain rules. I would ask him to read the rules and he will know that if he has a new question of privilege which he wants to raise, he must give me notice of it. I could not hear it at this time, but at another time on another day, if the hon. member sends me notice of the question of privilege. Is the hon. member rising on a point or order?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, indeed I am. Perhaps Madam Speaker overlooked that I gave her notice of a question of privilege during question period. The fact of the matter is that Madam Speaker has that notice and I should like an opportunity to elaborate upon it.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Yes, I received a notice which said that the hon. member wanted to elaborate on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. That is not allowed at this time because I have ruled on the question of privilege of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I do not wish to belabour the point, but there are certain facts which I have a right to put forward in Parliament, and I am being denied that right.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must accept the consequences of the fact that sufficient facts were not brought forward to allow me to rule that there might be a prima facie case of privilege in the case of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. If the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain cannot indicate to me that he has the basis for a question of privilege, I fail to see how another member could do it for him. If the hon. member has a question of privilege he should like to bring up at another time and gives me proper notice, I will hear him, but not at this time. I am just warning the hon. member that I will not hear him any more on this particular point.

January 27, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Flis


Mr. Waddell:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I feel that you did not give us sufficient chance to make the point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: They are trying to hijack Parliament, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Hon. members create their own chance. If in the first sentences they indicate to me that they might have something which is the basis of a question of privilege, then they are allowed to continue the elaboration of that question of privilege. But when after three or four minutes there is nothing in the argumentation which allows me to think that there could be the basis of a question of privilege, then yes, indeed, they have ruined their chances.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, surely some of us who perhaps have had legal experience can see a point that you raised-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Such disrespect!


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is suggesting that one would need legal experience in order to interpret the rules of the House. I would challenge that statement.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, on a point of order-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: I cannot hear the hon. member commenting any more on the ruling 1 have just made.


MR. FLIS-REMARKS OF MR. CROSBIE
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because a member of the House during today's question period discriminated against 400,000 Canadians of Polish descent and offended 35 million people in Poland. I refer to the words coming from the mouth of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Peter Elzinga: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid that is not a question of privilege either.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 60(1), I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion on the petroleum and gas revenue tax.
Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 60(2), I also ask you to designate the order of the day necessary for the consideration of this ways and means motion and of ways and means motions Nos. 35, 36 and 38 as listed in the Order Paper and Notices.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents who live in the city of Fort McMurray in northeastern Alberta. The purpose of this petition signed by 8,285 citizens of the riding of Athabasca is to petition the government to recognize the unique role which Fort McMurray plays in the development of the Athabasca oil sands megaprojects and the devastating effect that the November budget will have on the residents of Fort McMurray who, because of the city's relative isolation, experience costs for goods and services 20 per cent higher than in Edmonton, 500 kilometres south.
The nature of the petition is to request that the government take action to reinstate tax exempt employee benefits used to attract workers to Fort McMurray, such as interest-free loans for home purchases, vehicle allowances, subsidized rents and utilities, etc. The petitioners hope, in Madam Speaker's examination of this petition, that you will find the petition in order, sense the urgency of their plea, and that you might use the discretionary powers vested in your office to allow discussion and referral of this petition to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs at the earliest possible moment.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. The purpose of this petition signed by some 349 citizens of the Dunnville area is to indicate to the government their great concern about the imposition of martial law in Poland. The nature of this petition is to ask our government's insistence that martial law imposed in Poland be rescinded immediately and that all arrested and detained members of
January 27, 1982

Solidarity, workers, intellectuals and dissidents be released right away. The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that in your examination of their petition you will find it in order, sense its urgency and allow its reading in the House.



FARM CREDIT ACT FARM LOANS INTEREST REBATE ACT


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-88, respecting loans to farmers.


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

[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. 3,055, 3,288, 3,303, 3,323, 3,365, 3,458 and 3,508.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	With reference to section 10.36 of the 1980 Report of the Auditor General, what arc the specific terms of reference of the Relocation Task Force within the Department of Veterans Affairs?
2.	What is the structure of the task force and to whom does it report?
3.	Will the task force be responsible for preparing (a) a post-relocation analysis of its role in the over-all move (b) an analysis of the relative merits and demerits of the move from an internal perspective (c) a comparison of planned and actual achievements in terms of progress, manpower used and costs incurred?
4.	Do other departments anticipating relocation have such task forces and, if so, do they communicate with the Relocation Task Force in order to better understand the multitude of factors involved?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.	General accountability: The Director, Relocation Task Force, is accountable for the relocation of the headquarters of Veterans Services, Veterans Land Administration and the Administrative program of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the related agencies of the Canadian Pension Commission, the War Veterans Allowance Board, the Bureau of Pensions Advocates and the Pension Review Board from Ottawa in the National Capital Region to Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Specific accountabilities: Implements a concept of a headquarters operations away from the national capital, with particular emphasis in the required interface with Parliament, the government, and other agencies and departments in the National Capital Region.
Order Paper Questions
Ensures the effective co-ordination (in terms of time costs and minimal disruption to clients) of all phases of the project with all functional areas and all operational changes involved.
Ensures the maintenance of the portfolio's management information base during relocation period by the documentation of all systems and procedures in the portfolio.
Ensures development of accommodation and facilities specifications and maintains a continuous working relationship with Public Works project officers during design, development and construction of the new building.
Ensures that personnel movement plans for employees are developed and implemented within appropriate time-frames.
Ensures that manpower plans involving effective communication to all staff are developed and implemented to enable adherence to relocation schedule by maintaining close liaison with representatives of employee organizations.
Ensures that Veterans Affairs is represented at the appropriate level during discussions and negotiations with other government departments, central agencies and provincial government on relocation matters.
Ensures that the Treasury Board Secretariat, the minister, and senior portfolio management are continuously well briefed on progress of the project.
Ensures good public relations, through contact with media representatives, and through prompt attention to all ministerial and other enquiries.
2.	The Director, Relocation Task Force reports to the Director General, Administrative Operations.
Reporting directly to the Director, Relocation Task Force are six officers, as follows:
Project Manager, Planning Implementation and Co-ordination;
Project Manager, New Facility;
Project Manager, Information and Personnel Management;
Co-ordinator, Relocation Task Force (Charlottetown);
Project Manager, Interim Systems and Special Projects;
Administrative Services Officer.
3.	(a) No.
(b)	No.
(c)	Yes.
4.	Yes, with respect to departments that have relocation task forces.


Mr. Skelly: 1.	With reference to volume II of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Aviation Safety conducted by Mr. Justice Charles Dubin, does the report indicate a serious concern about safety problems related to working conditions of commercial pilots?
2.	Does the Minister of Transport intend to define "duty time" for pilots to prevent employers from requiring that pilots not work more than a regular

January 27, 1982
Order Paper Questions
eight-hour day or more than a five-day week and, if so, what will be the definition?
3.	Are commercial pilots often required by employers to fly in adverse or marginal weather conditions or to fly aircraft in over-loaded conditions or to operate aircraft upon which maintenance procedures have not been properly carried out and do employers threaten to dismiss them or threaten not to promote or recommend them if they refuse to fly and, if so, does the Minister of Transport intend to create an arbitration procedure to hear cases concerning commercial pilots who have been dismissed for refusing to fly unsafe aircraft and does the minister intend to give any arbitration board the power to reinstate the pilot and to order the employer to pay lost wages and damages?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes.
2.	Duty time for pilots is presently covered by information circular 0/3/73 dated March 12, 1973, and which addresses duty time under two headings. Flight time is defined as "the total time from the moment an aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight".
Flight duty time is defined as: "the time necessary to prepare for, execute and terminate a flight or series of flights and the administrative functions associated therewith".
The information circular recommends the following flight time limitations: 120 hours in any month; 300 hours in any quarter; and 1,200 hours in any year. In addition, flight duty time is recommended to be normally limited to 15 hours in any day unless provisions are made to allow for increased times, (e.g. relief pilots carried on board the aircraft). The circular also recommends rest periods of eight consecutive hours of prone rest between periods of flight duty time.
Legislatively, Air Regulations section 411 (C.R.C. c.2) states: "No person shall act as a flight crew member and no operator shall require a person to act as a flight crew member if either the person or the operator has any reason to believe, having regard to the circumstances of the particular flight to be undertaken, that the person: (a) is suffering from or is likely to suffer fatigue, or (b) would be otherwise unfit to properly perform his duties."
Detailed questionnaires were sent to all commercial pilots in Canada to elicit their views on flight-time limitations, the results of which are now being analysed to determine the validity and effectiveness of existing flight-time guidelines and regulatory requirements.
3.	Vol. II of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Aviation Safety states on page 361 that: "During the course of the inquiry ... the commission learned of overloading, falsification of logbook entries, flying below legal limits in bad weather, pressure on pilots to push weather limits, pilots working hours greatly in excess of the established guidelines, maintenance engineers signing maintenance logs without the required work having been done, and other unsafe practices."
The question of follow-up action related to these findings,
i.e. arbitration procedures, will be addressed by Justice Dubin in volume III.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission receive a communication from the county engineer of the united counties of Leeds and Grenville objecting to the fact that CNR has been invoicing the united counties for the maintenance of automatic railway signals at county roads 5 and 9 in the constituency of Lecds-Grenville?
2.	Is the railway out of service and, if so (a) what are all the reasons which justify making the municipality pay for the maintenance of signals where the railway does not operate (b) will the committee order the CNR to refund to the municipality any invoices paid since the railway ceased service in the area?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows:
1.	Yes. Considering the comments of the county engineer for the united counties of Leeds and Grenville along with the present level of rail traffic, the continued requirement for the provision of automatic protection at the two county roads will be reviewed.
2.	No. (a) and (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Skelly: 1.	Did volume II of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Aviation Safety state that the use of untrained flight attendants by airlines was a major safety hazard in the event of an emergency?
2.	Did the Department of Transport waive or ignore normally accepted procedures in order to accommodate Wardair when that airline locked out its flight attendants and hired untrained people to take the jobs of the locked-out employees?
3.	Does the minister intend to recommend legislation that will prevent airlines from leaving stranded employees away from home during a labour dispute by denying them passage home or by encouraging other carriers not to provide stranded employees with passage home?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. Yes. Volume II of the inquiry, tabled in the House of Commons on October 22, 1981, referred to a particular case by stating "there were, therefore, serious safety implications in the event of an emergency" (page 469). This issue is also referred to in testimony (page 458).
2.	No. The content and quality of the safety and emergency training was fully in accordance with Wardair's normal cabin attendant training program as approved by Transport Canada.
3.	No.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	During the years 1975 to 1980, did the Minister of Transport or any other Member of Parliament board the vessel Maisonneuve and, if so, on what date and for what reason?
2.	During which months of the year does the vessel operate and how much of this time is spent in the promotion of the port of Montreal?
3.	Does the minister consider that the expenditures for the maintenance of the vessel are a reasonable and prudent dispersement of public funds?
January 27, 1982


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
1.	During the years 1975 to 1980 the Minister of Transport did not board the vessel Maisonneuve. Eight Members of Parliament boarded the vessel on June 14, 1976. They were invited by Mr. J. M. Chabot, chairman of the Port Authority who was accompanied by Mr. Roger Beauchemin, vice-chairman of the Port Authority. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the following:
(a)	Jacques-Cartier Pier as a possible site for a future container terminal.
(b)	"Le Vieux Port de Montreal"-status report on its development.
(c)	1LA labour problems and their effect on port authorities.
2.	The vessel operates from the beginning of April to mid-December, on average. A total of 120 hours per annum is spent on port promotion during the months of June, July and August.
3.	Yes.


Mr. Blenkarn: Did the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation pay to have an information kit prepared in connection with the government's proposed assistance to home owners to carry their mortgages as set out in the budget and, if so, what amount and what was the (a) cost of each information folder (b) total cost of preparing all of the folders?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: 1 am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: CMHC prepared in its own print shop approximately 2,025 kits with information concerning the Canada Mortgage renewal plan. Two types of kits were prepared. One, prepared for Members of Parliament and Senators, contained 32 pages and cost $1.67 per unit. The other, prepared for the general public, contained 24 pages and cost $1.39 per unit. The total cost for all information kits was $2,926.75 and the average unit cost of all the kits was $ 1.45.


Mr. Cossitt: |. Did the government conduct a survey of the damage done by waves made by large speeding vessels in the area of the St. Lawrence Seaway between the upper end of the locks at the eastern end of the Seaway and the entrance to Lake Ontario and, if so, what were the results?
2. Did the government lake or does it plan to take steps to slow down the speed of such vessels in areas where damage has been done to property on the shoreline?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: In so far as the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority is concerned:
I. No.
Order Paper Questions
2. Speed limits are imposed on vessels transiting the Mont-real-Lake Ontario section to prevent damage to property on the shoreline. An enforcement program is carried out on an ongoing basis. To date, the speed of 1,903 commercial vessels and 120 tour boats has been checked. The U.S. Seaway entity carries out a similar program.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 3,274 and 3,507 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McGrath: 1.	Were housing units reposscsed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the Mortgage Insurance Fund and, if so, how many arc currently vacant and in what centres are they located?
2.	In 1980, for urban areas alone, what was the estimated number of households paying more than 30 per cent of their gross income for (a) substandard crowded accommodation (b) adequate shelter?
3.	What proportion of the existing housing stock in Canada is substandard and in need of rehabilitation and modernization?
4.	With reference to section 44 of the National Housing Act, how many units were under administration as of December 31, 1980, for the following defined public housing (a) provincially-owncd rental-CMHC financed (b) provincially-owned rental-provincially financed (c) provincially-leased-rcntal (d) non-profit/ co-op units?
Return tabled.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	During the 1981 navigation season on the St. Lawrence Seaway, how many large vessels were found to be speeding over the permitted limits in the area between the upper end of the locks at the eastern end of the seaway and the entrance to Lake Ontario and, in each case, what was the (a) name, nationality and size of the vessel (b) cargo (c) name of the captain (d) location of the offence (e) exact penalty imposed (f) number of warnings issued and the amount of fines imposed (g) manner in which the offence was determined?
2.	What are the speed limits for each section of the seaway in this area and what are all the methods of enforcement now being used?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Blackburn:: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the parliamentary secretary that it is almost a year since 1 asked

January 27, 1982
Motions for Papers
question No. 2,250. This question has to do with the government's active pursuit and investigation of the possibility that there are former German Nazis living in this country. This is the fourth time in almost a year that I have raised this question. The last time the parliamentary secretary replied to my intervention he said that he would as expeditiously as possible see to it that the question was answered.
I ask this question again, Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that it is part of the policy of our present Solicitor General to pursue that investigation. I am not asking for a witch hunt; I just want to find out whether or not the government is pursuing an investigation of former Nazis presently resident in this country. It is a simple question and it is about time it was answered.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, 1 will again endeavour to see what can be done to expedite the answer in this matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers Nos. 46 and 47 in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) are acceptable to the government. I ask. Madam Speaker, that the other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers Nos. 46 and 47 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

COPY OF FINANCIAL REPORT OF CN TOWER LIMITED Motion No. 46-Mr. Blenkarn:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the financial report of CN Tower Limited and its subsidiary companies in Toronto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
COPY OF FINANCIAL REPORT OF CN HOTELS Motion No. 47-Mr. Blenkarn:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the financial report of CN hotels.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, I would ask that Notice of Motion No. 83 be transferred for debate.
[ Text]
HEALTH STANDARDS FOR DAYCARE CENTRES Motion No. 83-Mr. Herbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, telegrams, minutes of meetings and other communications during the last year between the government and the province of Ontario relating to construction and health standards for daycare centres.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Shall the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, January 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan that Bill C-85, an Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-85. Agriculture is certainly one industrial sector in Canada that needs improved marketing mechanisms. Yesterday 1 listened to a number of speeches about the objectives of Canagrex, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that many opposition members had serious doubts about the effectiveness of Canagrex. Now, Canagrex did not come out of the blue. It was planned through close co-operation and consultation with all farmers' groups and associations throughout Canada, and I can say that especially in Quebec, the vast majority of farmers are very positive about this new corporation. Furthermore, this kind of organization is already well known in international markets and Canagrex is certainly not creating a precedent. I should like to point out to my colleagues on the opposite side that many, if not the majority of foreign governments have had agencies to deal with the export of agri-food products for a number of years. Some examples are SOPEXA in France, Britain's board for farm products exports, AGREXCO in Israel and CONASUPO in Mexico. The reason why these agencies were established is that an increasing number of countries want to negotiate on a government-to-government basis. The advantage of such negotiations is mainly that they offer government protection in addition to providing for speedy assembly of a stable export
January 27, 1982

market for all farm products, especially in a country like Canada, where most producers are working under a quota system for products such as potatoes, dairy products, grain and poultry. As far as meat imports are concerned, Mr. Speaker, a bill to regulate meat imports was promised in the throne speech-Canada was the only beef-importing country without a permanent policy on the volume of beef imports. Mr. Speaker, Canagrex is not going to do away with the other agencies but will consolidate all the agencies we have right now. In fact, our new legislation on meat imports will ensure that imports from overseas do not affect Canada's traditional role in the North American economy as a beef producer.
Another reason for changing Canada's policy in this area is that the U.S. legislation on meat imports, which dated back to 1964, was amended as of January 1, 1980, to include compensatory measures. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that stabilization board payments and marketing boards will not be affected by Canagrex. In fact, I feel that Canagrex will act as an umbrella organization for the agencies being established in Canada, that it will give us a broader perspective on export markets and will encourage Canadian farmers to become even more dynamic. My colleagues will probably recall that last February, Agriculture Canada negotiated a major agreement with CONASUPO, a similar agency in Mexico. Under the agreement, Canada will provide Mexico with some $100 million worth of wheat, dairy products, corn, beans and other commodities. However, it took more than a year of negotiations before the agreement was signed. Obviously, if Canada had had a similar agency of its own, as will now be the case with Canagrex, this would have speeded up negotiations and perhaps we would have got a better deal.
During negotiations the Mexican authorities made it quite clear that they favoured agreements between governments. Mexico, like many other nations, is trying to achieve self-sufficiency in food, and Canada will be helping Mexico in its efforts to achieve that goal. However, until then, Canada could supply Mexico with even more agri-food products. As soon as Canagrex is established, export markets and increasing opportunities in this area will be more readily accessible to Canadians. The agreement with Mexico is a first for Canada. The $100 million transaction may seem quite a lot, but it represents only a fraction of Mexico's agri-food needs. That means, Mr. Speaker, that with Canagrex there is almost no limit to what our contribution could be over several years. There are many possibilities, especially if we consider that the population of Mexico is growing at a rate of 3.5 per cent per year. In fact, these projections reflect only part of the possibilities of the Mexican market. And Mexico is not the only country offering very attractive economic potential for agri-food exports. I could name many more such as Algeria, Venezuela and others. It is incredible that Canagrex should still be in the planning stage at a time when this kind of agency could do so much for
Canagrex Act
Canada. However, at our present speed we are probably going to miss out on a number of good deals.
Once more, Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the fact that Canagrex will act as an umbrella organization for the many agricultural agencies we are setting up in this country. As I said before, we are not going to eliminate stabilization board payments and we are not going to do away with marketing boards, and I feel that we can encourage productivity and initiative among our farmers. Mr. Speaker, it would seem that a number of my hon. colleagues have tried to cast doubts on the usefulness of an agency that Canadians and especially farmers would be proud to have. 1 made a few queries in order to be able to answer some questions that are important to farm producers. I would like to give an answer to the member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) who claims that the drop in the price of beef is a result of too much beef being imported from Australia, New Zealand and Brazil. Present world beef prices are not due to a beef surplus, but rather to a low demand in most industrialized countries. Australia and New Zealand have exported nearly 100 million pounds of beef to Canada in the last three years compared with 185 million pounds in 1976. Why is this? Because nearly all this imported beef is used for various types of sausages and hamburgers. Because of high interest rates, Canadian meat importers are unable to maintain large stocks of frozen beef. Sausage manufacturers therefore use more Canadian pork and less imported beef because Canadian pork is less expensive. More than ever at the present time, beef prices in Canada depend mostly on the availability of other meats, such as pork or poultry, and on domestic demand. It is not simply the beef supply that explains beef prices. This and many other factors must be taken into account.
On the other hand, almost all imported beef consists of special cuts for hotels and expensive restaurants, but as the need for special cuts increases, we shall be able to export fancier cuts, especially from Alberta, to west coast American markets. Our exports to Japan are mostly high grade boneless beef cuts and in 1981 these exports reached eight million pounds. Our major competitor for the same grade of meat on the Japanese market is the United States. However, Australia is the main supplier of beef to Japan even though it exports beef of a lower quality and supplies a specific sector of the Japanese market. It must be realized that the international market includes specialized products and varied markets.
I would simply like to reply to the hon. member opposite who suggested the pig population has declined in Alberta because of sagging sales in Japan. This should not go unchallenged, because during each of the three years 1978, 1979 and 1980, our pork exports to Japan were very stable at a yearly average of 70 million pounds. In 1981, we exported 80 million pounds of pork to Japan. While four or five years ago most of the pork shipped to Japan came from western Canada, the majority now comes from Quebec. The reason is that western

January 27, 1982
Canagrex Act
farmers would rather specialize in the production of grain and rapeseed while farmers in Quebec and Ontario would tend to specialize in the production of pork which places them in a better position to serve regularly and consistently the export markets.
This does not mean there are no pork producers in western Canada. Far from it. However, the smaller number of pigs in Alberta has absolutely nothing to do with the decline of our exports to Japan, as implied by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte. It must be emphasized the U.S. are currently our main pork market, with sales of 145 million pounds in 1981. It must be noted that over the same period Canada imported 35 million pounds of pork from the United States. Also, the hon. member opposite suggested that since we import cattle in eastern Canada, we cannot export cattle or beef to the United States. Coming as he does from the maritime provinces the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte, who is fully aware of our potato markets in the United States, where we normally export from the maritime provinces while we import in the western provinces and central Canada, should know that the food market is not homogeneous.
As for livestock in 1981, we imported 170,000 head of cattle for beef and veal, especially to Ontario. At the same time, we exported 200,000 heads of cattle for beef, and feeding calves to the United States. Most of the cattle exported for veal and feeding calves came from western Canada, but it should be stated that eastern Canada exported 85,000 head of cattle for beef and veal, especially dairy herds. At the same time in 1981, we were exporting 121 million pounds of beef to the United States while we were importing about 20 million pounds from that same country. Almost all the beef exported from western Canada comes from beef cattle and dairy herds in eastern Canada and is used for processed meat such as sausages and hamburgers.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that since those statements were in my opinion unfounded, it was necessary to get the facts straight, and it is my belief that Canagrex will contribute to strengthening the foundations of Canadian agriculture.
I also noted other hon. members have stated that there was a tendency to socialize our Canadian agriculture. I dispute the validity of that claim, Mr. Speaker. Canadian farmers are entirely free to produce what they want on their farms except that when it comes to marketing, they have to obey the rules which are increasingly made on their own suggestions. I contend that the Government of Canada does not impose its decisions on farmers; on the contrary, over the past few years the government has been really open to discussions or to suggestions put forward by the farming community, which is primarily responsible for agricultural production and fair prices. I am proud to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that compared with the United States, which is the only country in the world to grow food throughout the year on account of its climate, Canadian producers can provide the same foodstuff at a cost
only 1 per cent higher. This is all to the credit of Canadians. We are told that Canadian agriculture should be socialized, and in response to that I would like to quote from this book Mr. Speaker.
In his book "The Merchants of Grain", Dan Morgan describes the structure and marketing methods of the five multinational grain companies which control the world grain market. Does the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte suggest that we leave ourselves to the mercy of these huge companies when Mr. Morgan describes the Canadian Wheat Board as the most sophisticated marketing system in the world, and leave ourselves at the mercy of five huge companies, not one of them Canadian?
[ Translation}
Mr. Speaker, if we were to believe some of the untruths which are being spread everywhere in Canada, we would think the government is trying to socialize agriculture. Because I was personally involved in agriculture for a while, 1 can honestly say that farmers certainly enjoy more freedom than most Canadians. Except that sometimes they have marketing problems. That is why we are establishing a corporation called Canagrex to promote and facilitate the export to foreign markets of our agricultural and food products, and encourage our farmers to become more productive and dynamic, which in turn will result in lower production costs. People often say that there is no way we could get a hold on European markets. 1 do not share this view, Mr. Speaker. For instance, 1 read here that a dozen eggs cost $2.65 in Paris, while it costs only $1.18 in Quebec and the rest of Canada.


Mr. Laniel:: They must have been laid by expensive chicks, that's why!


Marcel Dionne: My colleague is right when he says that they must have been laid by expensive chicks, because these prices are unacceptably high, and we could certainly use a corporation like Canagrex to sell more on foreign markets and encourage our farmers to become more productive and seek increased quotas. I shall mention other cases. For instance, beef is 35 per cent more expensive in Paris; chicken, 52 per cent; butter, 76 per cent, compared with 125 per cent for eggs. The situation in France is no exception. It is the same the world over, as I mentioned a moment ago. Only in the United States are production costs slightly lower than in Canada. Let me quote the price of eggs elsewhere in a few other countries. In Tokyo, a dozen eggs costs $1.76, in Brussels, $1.82, in London, $2.31 and in Berne $2.60. Mr. Speaker, I am anxious for that corporation to be set up and I look forward to the day when once and for all we decide to tackle world markets just like the Americans. We have much to learn from them. Day after day, their expert salesmen travel around the world selling their agricultural products. In Canada, in the

past we were aware that we had excellent food products but, unfortunately, we waited for the buyers to come to us. But this is no longer the case. In the 1980s and in the years to come, we will use Canagrex increasingly and it will become the true promoter of Canadian agricultural produce and products.
This prompts me to say that if we succeed as promoters we will be able indeed to shore up our agricultural food industry which employs hundreds of thousands of Canadians. We will also achieve a better trade balance thanks to our agricultural production, and our processing industry will grow stronger still. Another significant aspect is that our agricultural research will become even more sophisticated. We will be able to earmark additional funds to develop improved and better yielding varieties and to enhance the genetics of our herds. Mr. Speaker, time flies by and I would have a lot more to say about what Canagrex might be, because I have mentioned only a few of the numerous and challenging opportunities likely to stem from the establishment of that corporation. I hope that my colleagues do realize the urgency of such a corporation for Canadian exports. Canada can no longer do without the services of all our producers and all of them would stand to derive great benefits from it. As I pointed out earlier, the whole country could also benefit by way of a greater income and a wider trade network and by offsetting our trade deficit. I hope that all those who are anxious to promote the agricultural development of our country will join in a common effort to ensure that the corporation is set up as soon as possible.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I agree, along with the hon. member who previously spoke, that the bill is of some significance to agriculture; but most of all, agriculture is of importance to the country. It. is unfortunate that this government does not see fit to recognize how important agriculture is to the country.
1 am glad to see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is in the chamber this afternoon because there are some things that 1 want to say to him about the bill and, more particularly, about the kind of general condition of agriculture today. This government does not give very much of a priority to agriculture. Let me just refer to the bill, for instance. Reference was made to it in the throne speech of April 14,
1980.	Almost two years ago, the throne speech stated:
To improve the ability of Canadian industry to compete abroad in order to create jobs at home, my government will establish a national trading corporation.
We assume that the national trading corporation referred to in the throne speech is Bill C-85, the Canagrex legislation which is in front of us this afternoon. We wanted to do that almost two years ago. Eleven months ago, on February 20,
1981,	the minister issued a press release which stated:
Mr. Whelan said he will soon submit legislation to Parliament to establish Canagrex.
He was given the green light by cabinet to set up Canagrex. If a green light meant that 11 months would pass before such
Canagrex Act
legislation came before the House, I would hate to know what a red or amber light would mean to this government. If there was any kind of clout the minister could have used at cabinet meetings, he either did not use it or did not have it, because 11 months later we have the Canagrex legislation. It is now being touted as very important legislation that will be of help. Why, then, was it not given some priority a long time ago? Why was it not dealt with in this House before?
I suggest that the Standing Committee on Agriculture is a well-run and in many cases non-partisan committee. That committee did not have anything to do for the first four months of 1981. In fact, it did not meet. If this legislation is so important, I am sure there would have been agreement on all sides to give it quick second reading so that it could have gone to committee. TThis government did not see fit to do that. Therefore, we should let Canadian farmers know how this government considers agriculture.
Something else I find interesting is what the minister has been saying about banks. I refer to what is going on in our domestic industry. It is fine to have programs which encourage Canadian agriculture to export. However, if in the meantime our domestic industry dies and there is no farm production at home, it is a moot point whether there will be any benefit by encouraging exports when there is nothing to export.
The Minister of Agriculture has been running around this country saying that the banks are behaving scandalously. In one speech that was well covered by the media, he suggested that the banks could be sued for the kind of lending practices they were following. That seems to be erroneous when this minister supports his cabinet colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), who is responsible for the high interest rate policy in this country. If the minister wants to talk about suing somebody and doing something for farmers, he should tell the Minister of Finance to do something about these high interest rates. Then we could have some faith in him.
I now want to deal with a more specific matter. Last evening there was a vote in this chamber. One of the votes was on a subamendment which in part read:
-an excess profits tax be imposed on Canada's chartered banks to restore their marginal tax rate to the 1970 level.
The Minister of Agriculture has been running around the country talking about how terrible the banks are, stating that they should be sued because of the scandalous way they have been lending money to farmers. One would have expected him to vote in favour of that resolution. But how did he vote? He voted against it. He voted with the banks.
If one is going to have any credibility with regard to what one says, one should have the courage in this case to stand up and vote according to what one is telling the farmers as to how the banks are treating them. Many people in this country believe that agriculture is in as bad a shape as it was in the thirties. Fortunately, I did not have an opportunity to experience that first-hand because I was born in the middle of the

January 27, 1982
Canagrex Act
thirties. At this time when Canadian agriculture is suffering such severe problems, this government comes forward with Canagrex legislation.
The minister has been quoted as saying that something else he will do this year is to bring forward legislation dealing with off-track betting. That will certainly help the farming community in this country! This kind of attitude and performance by our Minister of Agriculture is a disgrace.
Let me talk about the bill before us. There is no doubt that Canada has to compete in foreign markets. In order to do that, we have to be as well represented as we can. Everyone agrees that the agricultural products produced in this country are second to none. We pride ourselves on the fact that our grain sets world standards. It is not enough to have the best; we have to be able to promote and sell it. There are not many who can quarrel with the intent of what Canagrex is being set up to do. However, we do have some concerns over the way this Canagrex legislation will tackle it.
Two days ago the minister spoke on second reading of this bill. He stated that Canagrex would run a tight ship. In the next sentence he said it would have wide-ranging powers. 1 am concerned that if Canagrex is given wide-ranging powers, it will be more difficult to run a tight ship.
That is a problem with a lot of our legislation today. Those who elect us to this place in normal times have one vote every four years to pass judgment on all that we do. If we are to run a tight ship, it is important that this legislation does not set up something that can get out of hand. As I said, those who elect us only have one vote to judge us on everything from the way the Post Office is run to foreign policy, energy policy and everything else that goes on in this country. It is important that we have control over the various institutions, semi-judicial bodies. Crown corporations and so on.
It is impossible for Members of Parliament to keep track of everything on a day to day basis. I refer to some of the powers being given to Canagrex. 1 refer to page 6 of the bill:
-Canagrex may
(a)	purchase agricultural products and food products and package, process, store ...
(b)	undertake and assist in promotion of the use of Canadian agricultural products .. .
(c)	enter into contracts with Canadian companies, co-operatives,... or other Canadian enterprises or with individuals carrying on business in Canada .. .
(d)	enter into contracts with foreign governments . . .
(e)	enter into joint ventures with government...
(0 make, on the recommendation of the Minister and subject to conditions of general application . . . grants and contributions for the purposes for which it is established.
(g) purchase, lease or otherwise acquire and hold real and personal property .. .
(i) pledge, mortgage, hypothecate, sell, lease or otherwise deal with-
This bill gives very wide-ranging powers to Canagrex. Directors will be appointed as follows:
All directors, other than the president, shall be appointed by the governor in council to hold office during pleasure for such terms, not exceeding three
years-
Another part of the paragraph describes the sequence in which the directors shall be appointed. When you give that kind of wide-ranging power and you give the government the power to appoint directors, there should be a better accountability to Parliament.
If the democratic system is to work properly, we are the ones to be held accountable for the operations of the government. I agree with the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) who spoke on the bill last Monday. He is concerned about the way the books will be audited.
I would like to see much more authority and latitude given to the Auditor General to look at the operations of Canagrex. I suspect the minister will agree that, in order to be effective, it has to have some autonomy. This could lead to a problem. It can be given too much autonomy. The bill provides that the Canagrex Corporation can have contingent liabilities of $75 million. I suspect that if it is successful, that will be used up very quickly. The situation could quickly develop where it is dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. We must be very careful to ensure there is a proper chain of authority and responsibility flowing back to this chamber.
We intend to raise some of these concerns in committee. 1 hope there will be an automatic reporting procedure to the House and to the committee so that we do not have to wait. 1 must confess that I am not too familiar with the rules of this House. I am not sure whether 1 need to apologize for that because the longer I am here, the more I realize that nobody understands all the rules of this House. However, there should be some procedure set up so that the annual report of Canagrex is immediately referred to the agriculture committee without the necessity of a House reference from the government or the President of the Privy Council.
In my brief experience as a Member of Parliament 1 have already seen problems with the agriculture committee getting people who should be there simply because the government does not want to provide a reference so that the appropriate witnesses can appear. There should be some mechanism in the bill to refer the report so members of the committee can examine the performance of the Canagrex Corporation without any interference by the government of the day, regardless of which party is in power. I am sure that those knowledgeable in agriculture in this country and the way agriculture works internationally would be very much in favour of that.
Canagrex is but one part of a very large industry in Canada. If Canagrex is going to work, why was it not set up a long time ago? It could have been effective in helping in our export markets. We now belatedly have a beef import law. We are very pleased to have it, but it would have been more effective had we had it ten years ago. There is no reason why that could not have been done a long time ago.
I now want to talk about the problems facing the beef industry. I have copies here of the minister's agri-food strategy for the eighties and challenge for growth as well as a copy of the main report and summary. The minister talks about increasing beef production in this country as a means of

helping out Canadian agriculture. The beef industry in this country is presently facing a very serious problem. This is true of the whole red meat industry. Every province that is producing beef in significant numbers has a provincial stabilization program with the exception of my province, Manitoba.
The other day the minister said he had offered the industry a 100 per cent stabilization program in 1977. He said it as though, once having been offered and turned down, it would never be offered again. If the minister wants to exercise his responsibility to Canadian agriculture from coast to coast, he has the responsibility to set up and co-ordinate a nationally uniform beef stabilization program. The longer he sits and dawdles, the tougher it is on the industry.
The minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture prior to Christmas. At that time he suggested he had a plan in his back pocket. We suggested it might be appropriate to have a meeting of the committee with him in camera to talk about what he had in his back pocket.
In the meantime, the minister sent out a survey across the country. That is an interesting story in itself. I sent a copy of the survey to a professional pollster and asked what he thought of it. I will send the minister a copy of it. In essence, the professional people said the survey was a sham, that it was set up in such a way as to get the answers the minister was looking for. I point out to the minister that the longer he waits, the tougher it is on the industry. If we wait long enough we will destroy our domestic beef industry to the extent that we will be lucky if we have enough beef for ourselves. In that event, Canagrex will not have enough beef to export to worry about. There is an urgent need for action on a national scale for which the minister has direct responsibility, if in fact we will be able to make use of Canagrex. If we drive our Canadian farmers out of business and have a hard time feeding ourselves, whether or not we have an operation set up to encourage exports becomes foolish because we will not have any product to export.
1 am very disturbed that the minister has accused farm leaders in this country of being gutless and not wanting to do anything. If anyone has been gutless in showing leadership, it must be that same minister who makes that sort of allegation.
1 will go further and call him absolutely useless. Since he has taken office we have seen a great agricultural industry decimated. I see that the minister is leaving the chamber.


Eugene Whelan: I will be back.


Charles James Mayer: When one starts talking about some of the things he has done, he cannot stand the heat and has to leave. If 1 had been minister for ten years and accomplished as little as he has for Canadian agriculture, I would probably leave the chamber too.
The minister also indicated that he would like to have a national beef marketing board which would have supply management powers. This seems to be a ludicrous statement to make when we know that he would not be able to have this type of program approved by cabinet. It would involve very
Canagrex Act
large expenditures and we know that the minister cannot even get enough support, from wherever it comes, to establish a national stabilization program in Canada. I therefore fail to see how he could establish a national beef marketing board with supply management powers which would involve a vast amount of money from the government. If he cannot get support for a national stabilization scheme, there is less chance of support for a marketing board.
I turn now to some of the provisions in the budget and how they will affect farm production at home and our ability to be competitive and export abroad. The budget will now only provide the Small Business Development Bond to farmers and small-business men in financial stress. We welcome the provision in the budget to make small business loans available to unincorporated businesses, including farmers, but it is only available to people in financial stress. People I have talked to say that the banks find it very difficult to make loans to people in financial difficulty because the banks do not like to lend money to people who will have a hard time staying in business. The banks prefer to lend to people who have the possibility of staying in business.
Another effect the budget had on farmers was to halve the capital cost allowance, or depreciation allowance, in the first year. If hon. members opposite had been back to their farming constituencies during the Christmas recess they would know that farm machinery sales have taken a turn for the worse. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Ostiguy) in the House and I know he is a farm equipment dealer. He will bear me out on the fact that the capital cost allowance for farm machinery had a devastating effect on farm sales. Farmers who want to buy a tractor or combine in the fall, which is the busy time of the year when combines are used, now cannot deduct the total year of depreciation. That will hurt the way farmers plan and maintain equipment, thus affecting farm machinery dealers which in turn will affect companies like Massey-Ferguson, who the government helped to stay in business. Some of the measures in this budget do not make a lot of sense.
Another major area of concern is the manner in which farmers will be treated when they sell land. This is true particularly for Saskatchewan because there is more farm land there than in any other province. However, it applies equally to any province where there is farm land for sale. The farmer cannot afford to sell his land because immediately upon completion of an agreement for sale, whether they receive all the proceeds from that sale or not, they are taxed on the total amount. Many farmers cannot now afford to sell out and will wait until they die, when the farm must be disposed of and tax paid to the government. As a result it will be very hard for young farmers to get started in the farming industry.
This will have serious imlications for all Canadians. We know that the family farm has been a unit which has provided the sort of products which enable this country to have easy access to food. We know there always is milk available- nobody has gone to a store to find there is no milk or bread- and it is always plentiful. There may be some people who have

January 27, 1982
Canagrex Act
trouble paying for it, but the fact is that it has been available in large quantities and at reasonable prices relative to the average wage in Canada. If the family unit is destroyed, it will not only have a serious effect on our domestic production but on the ability to export and compete with foreign producers.
I must be fair and talk about some of the favourable provisions in the budget for the farmer. There is $50 million to assist the Farm Credit Corporation which is made up of $45 million in loans to be made available at lower interest rates. This $45 million, relative to the number of farms, is not a lot of money. Of the $50 million, there is $5 million in direct assistance to farmers to help them with interest costs. This $5 million is available to farmers over a two-year period. That works out to $15 per farm over the two-year period. That is what the Minister of Agriculture did for the farming community in the budget. As I said, we have to give him credit for that. Although it is not very much, $15 per farm over two years, I suppose we have to be thankful for it.
To turn to the matter of transportation, in western Canada we are capable of growing much more for export than we are able to transport to the export terminal. Unless the government shows some leadership in assuming responsibility for providing proper transportation systems in Canada, not only for grain but for potatoes which maritimers are having difficulty moving, it becomes a moot point whether we need an export corporation like Canagrex. Unless the government takes positive steps to improve transportation facilities, then Canagrex will have no opportunity to function.
It has been pointed out that we do have some knowledgeable agricultural people attached to embassies around the world. However, there are very few. If I remember correctly, when the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) spoke on Monday, he said that of the some 100 embassies around the world there were only ten people knowledgeable in agriculture attached to them. I suggest it would be sensible to study this matter and provide knowledgeable agricultural people for those embassies so they will be able to work with foreign buyers and encourage exports.
There are many other areas of concern in this bill. During second reading I tried to point out some of the concerns we now have and which we must deal with in terms of domestic production before we can anticipate competing internationally. Unless the government addresses these problems quickly, I suggest to this government and this minister that we will be in danger of setting up an export corporation with nothing to export.
In conclusion, I would like to comment on the performance of the Minister of Agriculture. The minister has been in office for almost ten years. I have often heard him talk about the problems in Canadian agriculture but I have never seen him tackle those problems. I challenge members opposite to point out to me some of the major programs that this minister has put into effect which will be a lasting legacy to his tenure in that very prestigious position he occupies. 1 cannot think of one.
Hopefully if we can improve our production at home and give our farmers the incentive to produce again-we know they will produce if they are given incentive-then we can make use of this Canagrex legislation. Perhaps it will be the one thing which will be testimony to some of the good things this minister did when he was in office.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, to the comments of the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) I would like to add that in the last five years the only piece of agricultural legislation which has been before this House has been the recently passed meat import law. My colleagues who have been here for a longer period tell me that in the five years before that there was no agricultural legislation passed or brought forward.
Canagrex is intended to be a publicly-owned corporation. Public ownership has become part of the structure and fibre of our country. It is part of our everyday life. Basically there are three large groups of Crown corporations or public ownership groups. There is direct government ownership by municipalities, the provinces and the country. This includes buildings, canals, roads and those utilities which are necessary for the operation of the country.
There is another kind of public ownership which is direct ownership by groups of people in co-ops. These are also a type of public ownership. They have done much and are very important to the fibre of the country. These co-ops are the banding together of similarly motivated people for a particular reason, usually to protect themselves against some kind of exploitation. If we were to look at unions closely, I think we would have to say that they are a type of a co-op. They are the banding together of people to protect themselves.
Finally, there is a third group of publicly-owned institutions owned indirectly by government. Such institutions are a form of Crown corporation.
Over the years public ownership has become an effective social movement in which we as citizens have placed our faith and trust and from which we have come to expect a certain kind of service. We expect that service to be provided efficiently and effectively and with a minimum of cost and waste.
In Canada we have expected that publicly-owned concerns display a certain amount of public conscience. We expect that any publicly-owned business-a building or a utility-will operate for the benefit of the group being served or the people in its particular area of the country. We expect them to operate generally for the benefit of the whole population. We expect publicly-owned corporations or businesses to have a different outlook and a different policy respecting matters of conservation, ecology, labour relations, exploitation of resources and pollution. We also expect government ownership to be an instrument of government policy.
Sometimes we have a tendency to become angry with a corporation if it does not live up to our expectations, when what we should really be doing is becoming angry with the government for not establishing a relationship between itself
January 27, 1982

and the Crown corporation which would allow the Crown corporation to be the instrument of policy it was intended to be. 1 very definitely agree with the hon. member for Portage-Marquette that there is a great need for Crown corporations to be much more responsible to the government, to Parliament or to the country than they are at present. Because of the criteria I have outlined, we in Canada have come to expect that public corporations should have a public conscience and be an instrument of government policy.
On the whole, however, federal Crown corporations are a sorry lot. It has been said quite often that there is not one good federal Crown corporation. If we look over the main public corporations, we can find a considerable amount of evidence to back that up. I refer here to the CNR, Eldorado, the Bank of Canada and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. One of the reasons we say these are very bad corporations is that the government has not given them the kind of policy direction which would allow them to be good citizens or to provide the type of service we would like.
Some people, particularly free enterprise capitalists, say Crown operations are bad because they think they could make more money from the services which are being supplied to the people as a whole. This might be so. Free enterprisers might be able to make more money, but it would usually be at the expense of the service involved or of the consumers of the service. Others level that description of a sorry lot upon federal Crown corporations because these Crown corporations have not recognized their responsibilities. 1 am sure many hon. members have been abundantly impressed with the advertising of probably our most prominent Crown corporation, Canadian National Railways, the slogan of which for a long time has been "a business as well as a responsibility". Let us look carefully at how CN fulfils that responsibility. In no way has it provided the kind of service to Canada which has been expected of it. CN is unwilling to provide the kind of service for which it was set up. Lately we have been saying exactly the same thing about VIA Rail, a grandchild, I suppose, of the CNR and the CPR.
Some corporations are criticized because they have very little concern about the environment. For example, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has had a record for many years of misuse of the environment. Often the labour relations records of Crown corporations are worse than those in the private sector. Crown corporations are also criticized because they often take regressive approaches to the services they provide.
The position of the newly established postal corporation is that the people most able to pay, such as Imperial Oil which sends out thousands of bills, can send them out at 21 cents each. The small-business man, however, who only sends out a few hundred bills, must pay 30 cents each. One can pick any federal Crown corporation and I am sure one will Find some area where it has failed to fulfil one's idea of a publicly-owned corporation.
Canagrex Act
Canagrex is going to be another federal Crown corporation which will have some responsibility for the marketing of agricultural products. That sounds like a very good idea and it probably is. It will likely do some good in the marketing of agricultural products; but is there not a danger that it will follow the great sales tradition of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. in the sale of Candu reactors? That sales promotion was a disaster for the corporation and for Canada as well. The sale of heavy water by the same corporation was another disaster which last year cost the taxpayers over $600 million, and the cost is rising. Will it follow the loss of Consolidated Computer Inc. of $91 million?
I raise these spectres not in an attempt to downgrade the possible value of Canagrex but to point out, as expressed by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette, that government control and intervention in marketing has often been inadequate. In fact, the arm's length policy of the federal government in relation to Crown corporations makes their effectiveness rather doutbful. 1 am almost inclined to agree with the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), who suggested that perhaps all we need is an agency. Maybe it is wrong to establish a Crown corporation. Traditionally, federal Crown corporations have operated at arm's length from the government. In the category of agencies we have an effective and efficient model in the Canadian Wheat Board with which we have had much much experience and much success.
What I am really suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that when we examine Canagrex in committee perhaps we should examine its relationship to the government and the relationship of all Crown corporations to the government. Perhaps the chairman of the board should be the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), so that when Canagrex does not perform well we can ask him questions about it. It is bad enough that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board sits in the other place and that we are unable to ask questions of him, but at least he is the minister responsible for it. In the case of many corporations there is no one who has any responsibility within the corporation to whom we can put questions or to whom we can say that what the corporation is doing is wrong and that we should be told why that is the case.
I should like now to turn to the relationship of Canagrex to the industry. It is an important relationship. The industry is made up of a number of not distinct but interrelated parts. There is production at the farm level, there is transportation and there is processing which, in many cases, is value added before the marketing process. There are those four areas and there are possibly further parts to the whole industry, such as market development. Those parts cannot be separated with Canagrex taking care of the marketing phase only and ignoring all the others. That is a fallacy and we cannot accept it.
The grain pools in western Canada were formed in order to market grain and protect farmers from the line elevator companies that were gouging them, but now they have effectively become a part of all phases of the industry. The pools assist the farmer in getting seed, fertilizer and chemicals; they help him transport the grain to market; they help finance the

Canagrex Act
farmer and keep the cash flow available when necessary or when a small farmer could not afford it, and they enable the farmer to keep going when it takes too long for him to get money back from the point of export.
Will Canagrex fulfil these requirements of the industry? Will it help the farmer? The minister said that it will provide markets and that it will help to process the product and put it out for sale.
Clause 14(1) of the bill reads as follows:
Canagrex is established for the purposes of promoting, facilitating and engaging in the export of agricultural products and services and food products and services from Canada to other countries-
Subclause (a) reads:
(a) purchase agricultural products and food products and package, process, store, ship, insure, import, export or sell or otherwise dispose of products purchased by it;-
That is a pretty large order, Mr. Speaker. Will it all be done to help the farmer? We have a tendency to say that because this is a Crown corporation it is there for the benefit of the producer and the country, but will it be there for the benefit of the farmer? Will it help the farmer realize at least the cost of production of his product?
At committee stage we will attempt to ensure that the farmer/producer is protected in this structure, which may turn out to be mammoth and so far from the government that we will be unable to find out what it is doing and why.
Clause 2 of the bill sets out the limits of power and states specifically what Canagrex will not do. 1 think that is a little dangerous. That clause reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, Canagrex shall not (a) pay to producers or processors a subsidy directly on any Canadian agricultural product or food product;-
That point is emphasized later in the bill, but nowhere does it say that Canagrex will cease to operate if its operation is detrimental to the welfare of the producer. We all know of monolithic steamrollers in some corporations which cannot be stopped. They will go on doing what they think they were set up to do, even if it is at the expense of the citizens of the country.
As reported on page 14288 of Hansard, the Minister of Agriculture said:
I know 1 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 ... Perhaps we can even pass the bill in its entirety this evening, give it second and third reading, and away we go!
1 think this irresponsibility on the part of the minister is why it has taken so long for this piece of legislation to be brought before the House. He expects a lot, if he expects hon. members on this side of the House-and I hope those on that side of the House-to proceed without some assurance that producers will be protected. It is a good idea to sell all this food and farm produce, but if in the process we eliminate farmers, where will we get those products from?
The Canadian Wheat Board is not a Crown corporation; sometimes I am very thankful for that.


Mr. Neil:: Some people want to make it one.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I hope not. I should like to paraphrase the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is to sell producers' grain and to move that grain to export-and a certain amount of it domestically as well-so as to get the best possible benefit for producers. The minister did not mention such a mandate for Canagrex in his speech, in fact it is not even mentioned in the bill. Although I know the vagaries of politics and governments, I think it would have been worth something if Canagrex had such a mandate.
The major objective of the industry is getting the product to market. In this we have a parallel which cannot be overlooked. In the grain industry the government is showing its colours. I should like to take a minute to look at what is happening, as far as government performance is concerned, in present and future grain movement, as well as how it has or will benefit producers. Central to any discussion on developing markets for Canadian export is the matter of supply. In the words of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, "You cannot sell more product than you have got on the shelf'.
1 have looked at the performance of the Canadian Wheat Board during the last two years that I have been a Member of Parliament. I have found that the message which has been given to farmers fairly consistently over that period of time has been, in two words, grow more. I believe it is important to underline this message for the benefit of the Canadian public because the public has been misled time and again by the slick, manipulative campaign orchestrated by the railways, bulk shippers and lobby groups which have consistently painted the transportation system as the villain in the choked-up supply of moving Canadian grains to market.
In truth, as is often the case when major Canadian corporations begin to manipulate the media, the answer lies elsewhere. I am sorry the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) left the House. He has been a captive of his own department and of the railways on this issue. Despite his latter day conversion to statutory rates which can be raised as he pleases, he believes that the present transportation system based on the Crow rate inhibits exports, yet he has only to look at the evidence provided by the Canadian Wheat Board. The evidence indicated that we moved a tremendous amount of grain last year. This year the target is 26 million tonnes, and we were right on target at the end of December.
On November 28, 1980, the Minister of State referred to these targets in a public statement to the Alberta Wheat Pool annual meeting and added:
I know you are now planning your production for next spring and I urge you to expand because the Canadian Wheat Board will be able to sell it.
After he saw the results of his admonition to the public, he said:
With such encouraging market prospects and a transportation system ahead of the game, farmers should do everything practical on their own farms to increase production.

On July 31 of last year, the minister reviewed the fruits of his exhortations and said:
With present prospects for a high level of production this year, particularly in wheat and barley, I am expecting we will set new records in the movement and export of these crops-
Canagrex should be able to take care of or take advantage of the basic, solid transportation system which was established by the efforts of the Canadian Wheat Board and other agencies involved in the transportation of grain.
What kind of relationship does the government have with the grain industry? It may be the same kind of relationship which the government will have with Canagrex. If the government, as it suggested, changes the Crow rate, what will happen? The answer is simple. Farmers will be paying substantially more to move their grain; they will cut their losses by growing less; they will apply less fertilizers and less chemicals; they will plant less seed and will harvest less. Production will drop. The target of approximately 30 million tonnes for grain exports, which was not so easily attainable a couple of years ago, will go by the board. This is not what the government wants, but it is what it will get. Those of us who have fought to keep the Crow rate will recognize these factors. Those who have fought to take away the Crow rate will have succeeded, but at the cost of reduced exports and reduced incomes for western Canadians.
Before such a momentous step is taken, we should take a good look at the trust we have put into government legislation, legislation which will pass the Canagrex Act. In 1925 the rates were made statutory and were established. It was an economic act which was of benefit to Canadian farmers, the same way as the Railway Act gave the mineral rights on thousands of acres of land to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
What happens if this Crow rate is changed? What happens, for instance, to things such as the livestock industry? It is often touted that livestock production is an alternate to the production of grain. If the production of grain is reduced, so will the production of cattle be reduced. If the government were so rash as to adopt the measure produced by Carl Snavely in his latest update of grain movement, livestock production would have to increase by 350 per cent to offset the grain losses in western Canada. This is a very poor joke to those who are now in the livestock business in western Canada where oversupply and low prices have put that industry in long-standing difficulty.
A major part of Canagrex has to do with the processing, the packaging and the storing within the industry. Again, time will not allow me to elaborate on this, but the minister has said that they must be prepared to the extent that Canagrex would go into these phases. We must look into those to the extent to which money will be spent on processing when we examine this bill in committee. Where will that money come from? Will it come from the producers? The government is putting very little money into Canagrex. As the hon. member for Elgin pointed out, it is so little money that it will be very difficult for
Canagrex Act
Canagrex to operate. In order to build up its financial resources, where will that money come from? Will it come from the producer? If that is the case, we will be doing a disservice to the group that we are pretending to help.
Who will guarantee that Canagrex will not follow the lead of Eldorado, another federal Crown corporation, and spend almost $90 million to upgrade its operation? In the last five years, Eldorado has spent $88.7 million to upgrade its operation, and just a month ago it cashed it in. Where did that money come from? It came from the taxpayers. If this happens to Canagrex, where will the money come from? It will come from the producers.
The hon. member for Elgin also did a most adequate job of pointing out the shortage of funds from the minister's minimum standard when he originally set up the bill. There is a great danger that the corporation may attempt to reach those minimums with money from its operation. If that happens, it will be at the expense of the producer. Unfortunately, the structure of Canagrex lacks any original relationship with the producers of the products it intends to sell. Only normal commercial relationships will apply. Unfortunately for Canagrex, many other companies, often substantially more expert in their ability, are already marketing farm products.
Further, Canagex unlike the Canadian Wheat Board, cannot offer producers advantages of price pooling. Therefore, it cannot ask the producer for commitments of a locked-in supply. Canagrex must compete with other suppliers in the export trade. Since the corporation will have no locked-in supply, it will not be in a position to offer anything for sale. It will have nothing to sell, except in those areas where there are new products being put on the market. In those areas there will be new processes and volumes will be small. Canagrex is designed to be small-time forever and ever. It will have to compete with people who are already in the field.
Canada must compete with the sale of new products, but it is hardly a way to establish Canada as a leading exporter. In addition, the lack of agreement to promote single desk selling and price pooling could very well lead to the abuse of the producers that Canagrex is supposed to help. Agricultural production is often cyclical, particularly in thin markets. For example, the price of rapeseed rose enormously from less than $2 to more than $10 in 1972-1973.
Where in this legislation is there any guidance given to Canagrex to share those windfall profits with the producers? I find none. Where in the bill does it demonstrate that Canagrex can be more than a trading company that is backed by the government? Again, I find none. Where in this legislation does it demonstrate, after the prolonged gestation of the bill, that Canadian farmers should regard Canagrex as a friend in the way that the Canadian Wheat Board is regarded? Again, 1 can find no such guarantee.
On the whole, although the idea of Canagrex is good, there is no way that we as Members of Parliament can allow it to become law without some assurance that Canagrex protects the people it is supposed to help.

January 27, 1982
Canagrex Act
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it both a pleasure and a privilege to rise this afternoon and address this House on second reading of Bill C-85, to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote the export of food products from Canada. This bill is being introduced at a most appropriate moment for our agricultural industry, for all the people who are connected with this industry unanimously agree that the 1980s will be the decade for agricultural and food production in Canada and the rest of the world. Just as the 1970s have been the decade for oil and energy, the 1980s will be, in my opinion and in the opinion of a great many people, the decade of food production.
We need only take a look at the figures which are increasing year after year. For instance, farm revenues from all categories reached $18.4 billion in 1981 and are expected to increase by 4 per cent to $19.2 billion in 1982. This means that there is a constant growth in this industry. It is worth mentioning that there will be some 30.7 million people living in Canada by year 2000, and this is one third more than in 1981, and that the world population will increase by as much as 55 per cent. One can already visualize the impact this population explosion will have on the demand for farm and food products. In order to meet this huge challenge, the Canadian agricultural and food industry must be provided with a dynamic understructure which will help maximize its enormous potential. Food production in Canada could increase by as much as two thirds between now and the year 2000 and bring in revenues of some $35 billion in today's dollars, thus placing Canada in a particularly privileged position.
Mr. Speaker, in this great country which is Canada, we are indeed extremely wealthy, thanks to the ability of our farmers and the diversification of our agricultural production. Our potential for farm development is limitless. And Canada is already considered as one of the few net exporters of foodstuffs. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has been visiting Canada and the world for a great many years and he is proud to be able to say that Canada has become a net exporter of foodstuffs. And now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with some of the questions that were raised. A while ago, I heard the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) suggest that he knew of no legislation or benefit the minister ever gave the agricultural industry. If 1 were to list everything the Minister has done for agriculture over the past ten years, Mr. Speaker, I would not have enough of the time allotted to me.
I would simply like to name a few. There are the Agricultural Products Board, the Agricultural Stabilization Board, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Dairy Commission, the marketing boards, the cost-sharing plans, and so on. A while
ago, my colleague opposite, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), said that Canagrex would definitely be prejudicial to existing organizations such as the Canadian Wheat Board and others, but 1 must tell him, as the minister did in his speech and as reported in Hansard, that Canagrex would in no way affect the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission, which are already established, but if necessary Canagrex could assist-and this is for the information of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who is smiling- the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission.
I think that both organizations, of which we can be proud, have done some excellent work. One only has to recall the years 1973 and 1974, and perhaps 1975, when the dairy industry in Canada, and more especially in Quebec as well as in Ontario, faced some problems. At that time, this same Minister of Agriculture set up the Canadian Dairy Commission and cost-sharing plans were approved in each province. A marketing board, the Canadian Dairy Commission, has been controlling that production and today Canadian farmers, especially milk producers, are proud of the Canadian Dairy Commission.
I say therefore to my colleague for Prince Albert that Canagrex will in no way affect or be prejudicial to existing organizations. I would also urge the hon. member for Prince Albert to examine the report which has surely been sent to his office by the Department of Agriculture and is entitled: "Challenge for Growth in the Eighties, An Agri-food Strategy for Canada.'' This report, prepared by the department, makes forecasts and plans for our agriculture both in eastern and in western Canada, for our grain and dairy productions, for soilless crops, and it truly reflects the intentions of the Department of Agriculture for the eighties, always, of course, in co-operation with the. agricultural sector and the processing industry. I also urge my colleague for Prince Albert to read a report entitled "News and Features" that he surely has in his office since it was distributed on Monday December 7, 1981. It provides an excellent outlook on agriculture for the coming year.
In addition, every year, the minister and the department organize an Outlook Conference on agriculture which is always held in early December and in which from 600 to 700 farmers, processors, researchers, agricultural teachers and academics take part and work together to develop an agricultural policy to meet the needs of the Canadian farmer. I would also like to mention to my friend for Prince Albert, who seemed to have forgotten it a while ago, that the Department of Agriculture provides hundreds of millions of dollars every year to help farmers throughout Canada to finance their crops, whether wheat or corn. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that as far as I am concerned, I represent a largely agricultural region, the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe in the Richelieu valley, one of the

1439.
January 27, 1982
best farming regions in the country. Then comes Joliette, which is one of the best farming areas-


An hon. Member:: So is Valleyfield, for my colleague behind me!


An hon. Member:: And Beauce also!


Marcel Ostiguy: Indeed, the hon. member for Joliette has many good farmers among his constituents. I had the opportunity to visit this constituency quite recently. I go there from time to time as I have some family in this beautiful region, and I am certain that the hon. member for Joliette, who will probably take the floor this afternoon, will also be proud to support the Canagrex bill because he also has chicken farmers, egg producers, dairy farmers and very good potato producers in his region. It is in this perspective, Mr. Speaker, that we want to support agriculture but not to eliminate surpluses, not at all, but we all know that, as I said earlier, our farmers are able to produce more and to double their production. We are a small nation of 25 million people and we are able to produce food to feed the world population, we can do our share to help developing countries or those that are still known as underdeveloped countries.
I too have had the opportunity in the last few months of travelling abroad, in places as far as Bangladesh, for instance, where, I can assure you, the only possible crop is rice. But other food products are needed: meat, milk and so on. Canada is a net exporter of dairy products, milk, powdered milk, condensed milk, butter, cheese, and grain. We want our western farmers to increase their grain production. We also have farmers who produce without land: they breed pigs; in fact we produce 140 per cent of what we need and therefore we are overproducing. We also have very good poultry and egg producers and so we are exporting. Canagrex will help small processing plants to find markets, Mr. Speaker. In the last few weeks, 1 had the opportunity of meeting representatives from Middle East countries who were visiting Canada; they were interested in buying Canadian farm products. We were asked if we had, like Mexico, an agency that would handle the trade because, as we know, some countries would rather trade on a country to country basis. Thus, Mr. Speaker, Canagrex will fill the void, the void between the processing plants or rather, the processors and potential buyers of Canadian products.
Mr. Speaker, a few years back when I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly I had a chance to speak on a somewhat similar bill under which the then government proposed to set up the SOQUIA Corporation. I can say that the Corporation is doing very useful work within Quebec. Certainly Canagrex would not have exactly as the same role as SOQUIA but the goals are almost identical, namely, to help first the farmers and second the processors. As far as I know, SOQUIA did not get very much involved in the export of
Canagrex Act
agricultural and food products. But surely with the co-operation of the provinces and of such a body as SOQUIA in Quebec, Canagrex will complete that network that is so important for the welfare of our Canadian agriculture.
In 1980, we had a $3.5 billion agri-food trade surplus, accounting for 75 per cent of the total Canadian trade surplus. In order to add to that positive tendency in our agricultural sector and enable Canada to meet the strong demand which is anticipated, the Department of Agriculture has adopted, as I stated earlier, an agri-food strategy based on three main aspects requiring co-operation and consultation. Those three aspects are most important, Mr. Speaker. First there is the processing of resources, second, the development of markets, and third, thematic agricultural research. Coming back to the processing of resources, we know that Canada must take into account the existing markets if we are to process the full range of our national resources through regional research and development. Farm production is affected by the policies of several federal departments. Further, the Canadian government and the provinces, as 1 said, share the responsibility for preserving and developing our resources. The provincial role is especially significant because the resources of this land and the advisory services fall within their jurisdiction. Consultation, liasion and co-operation within the federal government and with provinces are the key elements of that strategy. And in order to promote productive investments, the resource processing strategy must ensure technological progress through further research and the application of experimental results, combined with the necessary incentives.
Then there is the development of markets. The government has always contributed its effort to the development of better outlets for Canadian goods on foreign markets. During the last round of multilateral trade talks, Canada succeeded in reducing tariff barriers and securing for a great number of our Canadian farm products better access to foreign markets. Simultaneously, greater protection has been negotiated for part of our major garden crops. Thematic research is definitely an aspect that has always been a most vital concern of the Department of Agriculture, since more than $200 million are allocated to research in agri-food and agricultural research in Canada, but the Department of Agriculture will need more money to better promote that research. I would not say we are lagging behind, but we are not yet at the forefront as far as our research needs are concerned.
I have just highlighted a few aspects of that challenging strategy, but still it must rest on a structure which is both flexible and tailored to Canada's agricultural reality. Mr. Speaker, it is in that framework that the establishment of Canagrex gains its full significance. In a way, everything that has been done for the Canadian industry over the past ten years will be hallmarked today by the adoption of such an important bill. I am convinced that the Minister of Agriculture as well as hon. members on both sides of the House, whether

January 27, 1982
Canagrex Act
they spoke before or will speak after me, will explain the need for Canagrex as well as its objectives and its mandate. Personally, Mr. Speaker, during the few minutes at my disposal I would like to outline the make-up, the type of financing which the new corporation will be adopting.
First of all, the corporation will be headed by a chairman of the board and a president who will be his senior director, and an advisory committee to the Minister of Agriculture. The board of directors will set up its own subcommittees as required. During the first few years of Canagrex a team of monitors from the Agriculture Canada marketing and economics branch will be responsible for finding challenging marketing projects and taking a first look at the projects submitted by farmers, marketing agencies, co-operatives, provincial governments, processors or any other body related to the agricultural food sector.
The board of directors will have 11 members who, like its chairman, will be appointed by the governor in council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture. Most members will be selected among farmers known as leaders in their respective fields.
A moment earlier I heard the hon. member for Prince Albert say that farmers would not be appointed to the board of Canagrex. Not quite, because there will be farmers among the 11 appointed members. The board will also include spokesmen for the agricultural food industries and businessmen fully cognizant of export markets and experienced in banking, credit, insurance and foreign markets. It has also been proposed that the federal departments of agriculture and international trade be represented on the board which will be authorized to approve the projects. I heard my colleague opposite, the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), say that he could not understand how Canagrex could possibly be connected with three different departments-agriculture, industry and commerce, and external affairs-and still manage to operate smoothly. I will explain to him. First, Agriculture Canada represents the agricultural community and the food processing industry. Second, Industry, Trade and Commerce represents the processing aspect of it, namely the manufacturing sector. Finally, External Affairs has a whole network of embassies throughout the world, and therefore Canagrex, through its board of directors, will dispatch its people to those embassies to work with their trade attaches to promote Canadian agricultural products. The hon. member for Elgin said something else which really surprised me, and I am quite sure that he did not really mean it. I quote from his speech of Monday last which can be found on page 14290 of Hansard:
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.
I was taken aback by those remarks, because we do have good managers in this country, good experienced farmers, and good food processors. The hon. member for Elgin, the former
minister of Agriculture, tells us that qualified people in this country are not in great numbers.
And he said further and I quote:
It is extremely important that we secure well-qualified people, people who are ready to work and are capable of taking appropriate action.
I really do think the hon. member for Elgin did not really meant that, and I am convinced of it because otherwise it would be an insult to our farmers, to our farming community and indeed, to all Canadians.
So there will also be an advisory committee made up of representatives from all parts of the agricultural community, it will be placed under the direct authority of the Minister of Agriculture in order to ensure that the corporation's policies are consistent with the global Canadian strategy in matters of trade and production. Agriculture Canada will provide administrative services to this advisory committee which will include representatives besides those 1 mentioned a minute ago, from provincial governments, marketing boards, co-operatives, federal departments and services, the business community, farmers and consumers. I believe this wide range of representation will meet with the approval of my colleague from the other side, the hon. member for Joliette. As far as we are concerned, we have qualified people in our country.
Regarding the financial aspect, Mr. Speaker, Canagrex will be a Crown corporation established under Schedule C. it will have an annual budget appropriated by Parliament. The corporation will require a total investment of $12.3 million for its First three years of operation. It has been pointed out that the minister had said it would be a higher amount, and we now realize it will be only $12.3 million. I think the hon. member on this side who spoke before me has put it very aptly when he said you have to learn to walk before being able to run. Of course, during the first year, Canagrex will have to build up its structure. However, this corporation does not need a staff of 200 to run its operations. What we need is qualified people and I am sure we will have them. During the first year, only a few people will be enough to get the corporation going. Canagrex will establish a fund to which any benefit front joint ventures as well as loans or guarantees repaid to the corporation will be credited. Canagrex will deposit into this account all moneys paid to it as a result of joint ventures as well as reimbursements of loans and guaranties. Canagrex will be able to pay for its expenditures out of the financial transactions account.
When Canagrex is fully cost effective, it may borrow money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The contingent liabilities from the guarantees are limited to $75 million, of course. Certain limits will be provided for each loan, grant and loan guarantee. The due dates, the interest rates, the schedules for reimbursement and the other terms and conditions or applicable costs will also meet with the criteria for government programs or any other criterion authorized by the government.
January 27, 1982

Considering that it will take some time to make Canagrex operational and to hire the number of experts needed, it is imperative that we establish this corporation as soon as possible. Of course, Canagrex will operate under the new Crown Corporations Act providing that the said corporations will have to submit to the Treasury Board five-year plans which would be updated every year.
Furthermore, as far as the operation of the corporation is concerned, the advisory board will have to submit every year to the minister a marketing strategy for the next three years. The board will define its strategy on the basis of data provided by Agriculture Canada, the Department of International Trade, the provinces, and by the agricultural industry and private industry. That amalgamation of a variety of general data and interests will allow for the development of a practical and enlightened strategy. Canagrex should normally strive to develop foreign markets as well as new and existing agri-food products. I also heard earlier the hon. member for Prince Albert say that we should have new products. I think we shall begin with those we have. I indicated earlier a great number of products that we can export on the international market as early as tomorrow even if-and I commend them for that- pork processors are already exporting to the United States and supplying the very large Japanese market. This does not mean that at a given time they will not be pleased to have an organization such as Canagrex help them on the international market where conditions are sometimes very difficult, and I had the opportunity to discuss this matter with them.
Each year, the directors of Canagrex shall prepare a three-year corporate plan. The plan shall set forth its purposes and objectives, its target markets as well as the products to be dealt with in the years covered by the plan. The whole plan once approved will serve as a basis for the preparation of the annual operating and capital budget that Canagrex shall submit to the Minister of Agriculture for Treasury Board approval. In fact, Canagrex shall have to show through studies and other analyses that the projects proposed in the yearly plans are economically feasible and are likely to become profitable within a reasonable period of time. Finally, each year, the board of directors shall make a report on its activities which the minister will table in Parliament.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with all the provisions included in Bill C-85, as a Member of Parliament representing a rural riding where agriculture is of the utmost importance, where processing plants are on the increase, where agriculture is most diversified, I am convinced that Canagrex will make a most valuable contribution to the Canadian agricultural sector and processing industry. As I said a minute ago, this is an over view of this structure, Mr. Speaker, and I hope members opposite will not delay their approval of this bill which, once again, as I said earlier, will enhance the role of Canadian agriculture. I should like to end my remarks with these words, Mr. Speaker. The people in the Middle East are often referred
Canagrex Act
to as the oil-rich Arabs. 1 say that Canadians, in the 1980s, will be the Arabs of agriculture and agri-food products.
Mir. Blais: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) on a point of order.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, just now the member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) challenged the members on the opposite side, that is, the government members, regarding measures taken by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who has been in charge of this department for about ten years.

As a result of that challenge, I would seek the consent of the House, in order to avoid having to read the full list of accomplishments of the Minister of Agriculture, which number more than 50 during his tenure, to simply revert to Orders of the Day in order to table this document and perhaps obtain the consent of members of the House to have it appended to this day's Hansard.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I think that is completely out of order. It is a point of argument. I do not think there are many provisions under our rules which would allow the tabling of such a document by a minister.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I will go through the list. The establishment of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, the establishment of the National Turkey Marketing Agency-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I thought when the minister sought unanimous consent he was on the right track, standing as he did on a point of order. But I do not think we can have him read a list of accomplishments. As he suggested, I will seek to know whether there is unanimous consent for the minister to revert to motions in order to lay upon the table a certain list of accomplishments.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is not unanimous consent.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has already made a speech. 1 would like to ask the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) to take part in this debate, and he would, of course, have an opportunity to speak for the Minister of Agriculture on the comments made earlier by my hon. colleague.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments and I was hoping that the mood would be a little less aggressive than it

January 27, 1982
Canagrex Act
was yesterday evening-after all, no one day is the same. However, bills and debates do not seem to change. On the other side of the House I sense great enthusiasm for this proposal to establish a Crown corporation for the export of agricultural products. I believe there is no problem as to the principle. In times like these, and in view of the problems with which our producers are faced, 1 feel there should be no objection to adding a new instrument for agricultural development to those that already exist, or to having a mechanism for promoting exports of our agricultural products. However, although we have no basic objection to this new concept, I do have some reservations because it is a new organizational structure, and because we do not know exactly what this other new structure is the government announced recently, which is based on the concept of reorganizing the country's economic development by consolidating the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, while the Department of External Affairs is also involved-some ministers are going down a few notches while others may not be getting anything out of the new structure, I am not quite sure about this and in any case we do not know what exactly is involved.
The Prime Minister himself (Mr. Trudeau) had a lot of trouble explaining on television what this new economic development tool was supposed to be. In any case, it seems that the government intends to set up a rather extraordinary organization. Since we do not know exactly what the role of the new organization will be, the question arises whether the Crown corporation we are discussing could not have been integrated into this larger organization. With many other colleagues on this side of the House, I feel that when the bill is considered in committee, we will be able to have a far better idea of what is involved than we can from a short press release and a few understandably enthusiastic comments by government members.
This reservation is necessary, I believe, with respect to the importance that will be given to and the cost involved in this new economic development structure which, besides, seems to bring about a fundamental change in the role played by the Department of External Affairs. When considering the legislation in committee, we will be in a position, on this side of the House anyway, to ask relevant questions, because there should be some kind of relationship when we deal with economic development; agriculture cannot be totally set apart, and it is important for us, it is important for Quebec as well as for my riding. The minister has left the House for a few minutes, and 1 wanted to thank him for honouring me with his presence, not too long ago, in my riding. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Ostiguy) for one has stated that he had been in my riding some time ago to meet with a few producers. This made me wonder all of a sudden about what was happening, last summer, because I had so many visits, Mr. Speaker. I represent a rural riding and agriculture seems to
concern more people than ever, but those were very short visits. I will not go any further into this, Mr. Speaker.
In my riding, of course, there are many producers who will be interested in any proposal likely to promote our agricultural markets. Dairy producers are important in our area, as well as farmers involved in the production of fruits, vegetables, potatoes, pork, eggs, chicken and so on. Let us hope that maple syrup producers, for instance, will be able to sell their products through this new agency. It would be a good thing to see those producers who presently have big problems take advantage of this agency once it is in operation.
The second reservation 1 wanted to make right now, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister had a much broader idea in mind than what the Parliamentary Secretary explained to us today. According to the minister, some $60 million would be necessary to create this agency, which could give employment to 120 or 125 people, I think. Of course, there seemed to be a relation between the importance of this new corporation and the number of employees and the budget it would require. The hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne) feels sorry that this legislation has been introduced so late, but it is certainly not our fault. 1 think this time we did not hold up the introduction of this bill. Apparently the minister intended to introduce this piece of legislation 11 months ago and at that time the budget and the number of employees would have been greater than provided for in this legislation. Here we are dealing with $12 million and four or five employees. Then I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture stated all the truth when he told us that for the first year Canagrex would be a rather modest operation, or rather whether the minister could not get the credits he wanted from the cabinet. Indeed, it would not have been the first time that the Minister of Agriculture had failed to obtain what he needed to promote the industry he represents, namely agriculture. Nevertheless, we are still skeptical when we hear the government talk about such an enormous over-all plan, not to say too costly. For the time being, I do not have to wonder about that, but only about the fact that this plan could be reduced so drastically from what it was in the original proposals.
1 certainly think that interesting and pertinent questions will be asked before our committee on agriculture. Earlier, 1 listened to the hon. member for Chicoutimi who said he was sorry that the passing of this legislation had been delayed for so long and that high interest rates made it very hard to build up inventories of agricultural products, especially where beef is concerned, and that it was much more difficult now to build up inventories than it used to be some months or some years ago because of interest costs. Such a criticism does not come from the opposition side but from a member on the government side, the hon. member for Chicoutimi, and I was happy to hear it because it confirms what we have been saying for at least the past year.
January 27, 1982

Some mention has been made-and I agree one hundred per cent-of the self-discipline that farmers have managed to show in some areas of production. More and more, they will run their business with the same discipline as that of any industrial manager. There is no doubt about that. I think that producers have demonstrated a lot of interest and compliance in agreeing to all these plans which today allow us a better control over our production in relation to our market needs. This is the only way to go. It is also relevant to emphasize the importance of food production on a global scale and to note our country's ability to meet this ever-increasing demand which, incidentally, will give our producers the opportunity to increase their incomes. I repeat, any proposition concerned with the promotion of this objective is worth consideration.
It has been said that this corporation will not replace existing agencies such as the Canadian Dairy Commission, the Canadian Wheat Board or other marketing boards, but the minister also said in his speech that if they ever needed help from this corporation they would be welcome to it. At this stage, it is not intended to act as a substitute for existing agencies but should the need arise, it could help them out. 1 think that when this bill goes through the committee stage, the minister will be asked some pretty interesting questions. Promoting the export of our agricultural products and increasing our exportations is certainly a worthy aim which all hon. members should support. I repeat that there appears to be a consensus as far as the principle is concerned.
In view of the present problems of our producers, I believe that any positive action to promote ever better agricultural production will always be well received on this side of the House, because I do not think, as you must understand, Mr. Speaker, that the recent budget can help our agriculture to start on the road to recovery. We are well aware, and other members have emphasized this before me, of the difficulties now facing our farmers. I know quite well, for instance, that the Minister of Agriculture tried to get much more money to bolster the Farm Credit Fund than he was able to obtain at this time.
We know that the farmers are extremely discouraged by the budget proposals. I therefore take this opportunity to remind the minister of the difficulties facing the farmers. He must understand that a sustained effort must be made for the farmers and those in difficulty. Of course, I shall be told that the budget includes a proposal to save those who are already going under, but they will not be saved completely. There is nothing to protect those who will go under in a short time. Those members who are at least interested in farming and who live in rural constituencies are also aware of the difficulties facing many other sectors such as hog producers and dairy farmers. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ostiguy) mentioned the problems faced by these producers in 1973, and which I recall quite well. There is also room for improvement
Canagrex Act
in other areas, and I say once again that any worth-while measure will be well received.
If 1 may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the board of directors. It appears that there will be 11 directors under the responsibility of the minister, of course, and that seven will be selected outside the public service. I do not know if ability will come before political stripe, as this is not written in the bill. The parliamentary secretary expressed concern earlier about the comments made by my colleague, the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), to the effect that there were not enough qualified people to-


Gérald Laniel: Please apologize!


Roch La Salle: 1 think 1 can explain why my colleague said that. He is concerned about the level of competence of the directors because he does feel, as I do, that the people to be appointed to the board will probably be bosom friends of those in power. That explains his concern.


Eugene Whelan: How could you imagine such a thing?


Roch La Salle: Furthermore, if 1 understood him correctly, the minister gave me the assurance that people from both political stripes would be appointed to the executive committee. We will make sure of that. Also provincial representatives of the business community and farm organizations will sit on the advisory committee. I do not know if all provinces will be represented on it. Naturally, I hope so, and I would like the minister to realize the importance of provincial representation.
I think it is important to have a dialogue with all the provinces, including the province of Quebec, and that the business community participate in those negotiations, in those consultations with farm organizations. In that respect, 1 would be pleased to hear in committee, which organizations the minister intends to have represented on the advisory committee.
I think those representatives should be chosen very carefully, since this corporation will have the responsibility of promoting our agriculture as well as our farm products abroad. Understandably, those people must be picked very carefully and board and advisory committee members should be selected on the basis of their skills and their experience in agriculture. And I shall insist on the presence and representation of the provinces. As the minister is probably aware, there is a tendency to emphasize the federal presence or even to centralize when all the provinces are concerned. I hope that this corporation will respect the provinces and provincial priorities as concerns their farm legislation. I hope that all other federal departments will follow suit, since such dialogue, negotiation and consultation with the provinces is essential in such a crucial area as agriculture.
Those were the few remarks I wished to make, Mr. Speaker, regarding that new corporation which has, I think, a most significant mandate. It will be much easier to consider such a bill in detail in committee. Certainly it will be easier to get

January 27, 1982
Canagrex Act
answers to our questions when we can question the minister in committee, and if he can explain what will be the structure of the new Department of International Trade and External Affairs, we will be able to understand how important the new corporation will be. But since to date we have not been getting enough explanation on this new organization for regional economic development, we have every reason to have our reservations concerning this future organization.
If we could be convinced that this agency will be of a great help to our farmers, we would not hesitate as this party has always been favourable to farmers and has always done its best so that our agricultural community would have a greater importance within our domestic economy, and so that our farmers get reasonable benefits from the profession they have chosen. I believe there is no question about that and 1 hope that we will soon go into committee, but I know that some of my colleagues want to participate in this debate. I believe this is perfectly justified in view of the importance this party attaches to the future of agriculture in Canada.
[DOT]	(1730)


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, it is an auspicious day for Canadian agriculture and trade as we meet for second reading of the legislation that would bring Canagrex, the Canadian Agricultural Export Corporation, into being. I should like to commend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) for his efforts in promoting this corporation and for his expediency in introducing this legislation to establish Canagrex. 1 want to point out that over and above the 50 or more accomplishments to his credit which the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) wanted to read into the record, we will soon be able to add this important piece of legislation to his achievements as Minister of Agriculture.
[DOT]	(1740)
The bill we are considering fulfils in large part the government's promise of developing the same reputation in markets for all Canadian agricultural products which this country enjoys in grain handling. It is also consistent with many of the recommendations made in the agri-food discussion paper "Challenge for Growth" which has clearly identified the need to supply and develop markets for all our agri-food products. Moreover, the international climate is ripe for Canada to take on a more active role in promoting the sale of its food products abroad.
As we enter the third year of this decade, it is becoming more clear all the time that the eighties have all the makings of becoming the decade of food production, much as the 1970s were known as the energy years.
Worldwide demand for food will have serious political, social and economic repercussions unless nations such as Canada, one of the four net exporting nations of food products, are able to boost food supplies.
World population is increasing by 75 million to 80 million per year, and food production will most likely not keep pace with this increase in world population. Canada must take on the challenge of expanding its food production to meet world demand, not only for its own sake but also as a responsibility toward those countries that depend on the exporting nations to feed their people. Food is, after all, man's most basic need and unless exporting nations capitalize on their potential to produce and export food products and understand more fully the requirements of each country, they risk triggering a crisis that is far worse than the energy crisis we knew.
Agri-food is the natural resource that offers the most hope for mankind and, as far as Canada is concerned, we have much to gain by developing this resource, because not only is it renewable but the agri-food industry has the potential for tremendous expansion. Optimistic estimates indicate that Canada will be able to increase its food production by two thirds in the next two decades. If we can develop the market for our agri-food products and meet wheat export targets of 36 million tonnes by 1990, agriculture may become the cornerstone of our economy. We will not only have expanded our agricultural base, but will have diversified it as well by opening new markets for products that have never in the past been competitive internationally.
At a Financial Post conference on agri-business in Toronto last fall, one participant predicted that if world population grew as predicted, Canadian food producers may have to supply 80 million new customers every year. However, in order to meet future demand, we require a thorough understanding on overview of world markets, a strategy to supply those markets, and the ability to do so comprehensively and consistently. Canagrex can make a big difference, serving as the focal point for various agricultural marketing efforts with the capacity to carry through on the long-term, higher-risk ventures.
Extensive discussions, analysis and a sense of commitment to improving Canada's export capability and track record have brought us to this stage today. It has been a lengthy but a worth-while process.
The idea of forming such a Crown corporation was first discussed by the Minister of Agriculture and representatives of farm organizations in 1978.
Canagrex has been widely discussed across Canada since the announcement of its planned formation in the Speech from the Throne in April, 1980. Comments from all sectors of the food and agriculture industry have been favourable. This is significant because Canagrex is expected to work closely with all sectors of the industry, including private firms, co-operatives, marketing boards, and individuals, to reinforce the export capability of the food and agriculture industry.
January 27, 1982

It should be borne in mind that the government, through Canagrex, wishes to encourage additional exports, not to duplicate the existing efforts of firms presently doing a good job. But Canagrex would have a necessary and important role as a co-ordinator of marketing thrusts across the country.
Canagrex will enable us to consolidate and intensify our efforts much more than we have in the past. This is essential if we wish to live up to our potential in food production. Canadians consume only part of our food production, and unless a serious attempt is made at selling these products abroad, the industry at home will never have the opportunity to grow.
By establishing an agricultural export corporation, we will develop an expertise we have never known in agri-food production and marketing. It goes without saying that if the agri-food sector is strong, then research in this area will also increase and improve. Furthermore, input into Canagrex will come from the business community, farm organizations and government, so that it represents the interests of all parties who have a part to play in agri-food production.
Support for Canagrex is strong across the country. On numerous occasions, there has been unanimous support for its creation by provincial ministers of agriculture. The farming community, too, favours the establishment of Canagrex. Farm organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union, have repeatedly called for an agricultural export corporation. As well, a number of private companies and industry groups have expressed interest and support for a stronger federal role in agricultural export efforts. This of course, Mr. Speaker, is not surprising given that a better export capability for food and agricultural products will, in turn, facilitate an expansion of Canadian agricultural production and increase to the industry.
If Canada is to put more emphasis on trade, one of our first responsibilities should be to focus on areas of strength, and agriculture is no doubt at the top of the list. There is nothing unusual about the establishment of a Crown trading corporation.
Industrialized nations have come to realize that in order to compete more effectively in world markets, they must co-ordinate or even centralize their activities. The Canadian government has taken such an initiative in other sectors in order to improve trade relations with other countries by establishing, for instance, the Canada Development Corporation, the Export Development Corporation, the Canadian Commercial Corporation and even Petro-Canada.
It is already a known fact that many countries prefer or even insist on negotiating trade deals with governments of other countries either directly or through Crown corporations or government agencies. This is especially so in commercial relations with east European countries and with the developing countries. We may reach the point, if we have not already done so, that the success of our trade relations with the east and the Third World will depend on how much interest the government has in the corporation that is doing the trading. For example, in 1973, when the Hon. Donald Macdonald attempted to negotiate a deal with the Venezuelan government, the latter specified that it was prepared to sign a deal with the Canadian Crown corporation, but not if a private oil
Canagrex Act
company was involved. There are many other instances where countries have either hesitated or refused to sign deals with Canada, unless it was under the auspices of a Crown corporation. This has been a feature when signing energy deals with other countries such as with Mexico. The trend is likely to continue, especially when it concerns exports which are vital to human subsistence, such as food products.
Private industry itself has begun to recognize the importance of Crown corporations and government agencies in opening markets and in promoting and selling their products abroad. Rather than viewing these corporations as competitors, they have accepted them as important allies and partners in export markets. Canagrex will not only demonstrate the federal leadership that has been called for, but it will help to develop the agricultural potential which exists in all provinces to produce and market abroad more raw and processed food and agricultural products.
In addition to helping develop a firmer partnership between industry and government in marketing, Canagrex will act as a unifying force in Canada. It is conceivable that we may have missed significant trade opportunities in the past, opportunities that we may have taken more advantage of if Canagrex had been in place. For example, it is possible that our exports of seed potatoes to Portugal would have been enhanced through a joint venture involving Canagrex. Algeria has indicated that it would prefer to deal with an organization such as Canagrex for importing a number of agricultural commodities. A potential sale of livestock to Spain was lost because we could not match the terms and conditions offered by our competitors. Canagrex will be more attuned to the market requirements of a wide array of countries and products. Very simply, we cannot knock on doors unless we can deliver. Without Canagrex we have not been able to market our products as aggressively as world competition demands and as we could have done and will be able to do with Canagrex in place.
Our agricultural trade missions to such places as Egypt have been fruitful, but we have not been able to conclude significant deals without an organization in place to carry through with providing the link between industry and government to deliver the goods. Therefore, it is clear that the legislation with which we are dealing today and its adoption by the House will have a great impact upon Canada's ability to improve its balance of trade, its marketing efficiency and its role as a provider of food to a growing world population.
Canagrex enjoys considerable support outside the House. I would sincerely hope that it would continue to enjoy similar support from hon. members today. Members have already indicated an appreciation for what Canagrex has to offer when they waived the traditional waiting period to give unanimous approval for first reading of Bill C-85. For years we have seen export sales opportunities slip through our fingers because there was not a mechanism in place to provide the help needed to close deals on the scale involved. With the support of hon. members, such losses can now be a thing of the past. I urge every hon. member to approve this bill without delay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 27, 1982
Canagrex Act


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have sat here this afternoon and listened with considerable interest to the debate which has taken place. I thought to myself that times have certainly changed in the past ten years because 1 heard an hon. member of the NDP severely criticize Crown corporations. I sat here and I listened to the government side which traditionally, many years ago at least, was a free enterprise party praising Crown corporations. 1 wondered what has happened to Parliament. It seems to me that in the last ten years we have moved toward socialism under the leadership of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Eugene Whelan: He is following Alberta's policy.


Douglas Charles Neil: I hear the minister, but I think there is more free enterprise spirit in the province of Alberta or in the government of Alberta than there is in the Government of Canada.


Eugene Whelan: How much land does Alberta own?


Douglas Charles Neil: At least some of us believe in the right to own land.


Eugene Whelan: Alberta owns 50 per cent of the land.


Douglas Charles Neil: I will not get involved in an argument with the minister across the floor of the House-


David P. Smith: Because you would lose it.


Douglas Charles Neil: -because we are dealing with the Canagrex bill. 1 was interested in the attempt which was made by a minister
a short time ago to bring in a list of the minister's accomplishments.


Eugene Whelan: The list was requested.


Douglas Charles Neil: I do not believe that anyone requested that the list of the minister's accomplishments be tabled in the House. But 1 would assume that the minister carries that list around in his pocket all the time so that it is always available. I wonder whether he lists among his accomplishments the Meat Import Act when he was not prepared to recognize lamb as meat, when he forgot about the lamb producers in Canada and was not prepared to rise and argue that lamb should be included in the Meat Import Act. What about the metric bill? He was involved in the metric bill as the minister when they made changes for the Canadian Grain Commission.


Eugene Whelan: That is right.


Douglas Charles Neil: I do not think the minister understands or appreciates the feeling with respect to metric across Canada, this system of measurement which has been imposed upon Canadians by order in council.
1 should like to get into the details of the bill, but 1 see that it is approximately two minutes before six o'clock. May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: With the unanimous consent of the House we will call it six o'clock. 1 do now leave the chair until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 5.58 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, January 28, 1982