1982-01-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Minister of Finance has long been known for his quiet, withdrawn demeanour, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the Minister of Finance quietly withdraw his misdemeanour.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion. At the present time ships built by offshore countries and plying their services completely in Canadian waters are subject to a 25 per cent duty. However, this duty does not apply to ships built in Commonwealth countries. This has created considerable hardship and unfair competition for the Canadian shipbuilding industry, which is having a difficult time as it is competing for contracts with these countries, that give a greater subsidization to their industry than does Canada. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the government take the necessary steps to change the Canada Shipping Act and remove this preferential treatment which has been an anachronism for many years.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMERGENCY MEASURES
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The emergency planning order, Order in Council No. 1981-1305, gives the Solicitor General for Canada authority to:
Facilitate the selective reduction and transfer of prison populations to provide for the establishment of civilian internment camps.
The government has to date refused to supply the background information upon which this authority was premised. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That this House either produce the reasons for this authority for a full debate in the House or rescind the said order in council at once.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning the government's urea formaldehyde foam insulation policy. The government's UFFI aid policy for victims of urea formaldehyde poisoning is completely inadequate because it is a token remedy for a serious problem the government now admits it created; it fails even to begin to help thousands of Canadians who must rid their homes of UFFI; it will bring serious financial hardship to home owners who are now left with properties that have little or no resale value, and it arbitrarily sets a suspect gas level without considering the different reactions by thousands of Canadians who are and will be exposed to UFFI. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):

January 29, 1982
5.0.	43
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources reassign funds now allocated for CHIP to insulate homes this year and next and make these moneys available for an emergency fund to assist all UFFI victims with the costs of removing this foam and restoring their homes to previous condition.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given that the budgetary provision deeming that employer-paid medical and dental plans are now to be considered taxable benefits has caused consternation and upset throughout the business and labour communities, and further given that this provision will affect millions of Canadians, including a local business person who writes:
-the proposal is destructive-the average increase in tax payable per employee will be $157.74 per year-my prices to my customers will have to increase-
-therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That this House urge the Minister of Finance to reconsider all representations on this particular provision, and after having given it cool, sober second thought, withdraw this inequitable provision.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, concerning the decentralization program of the government I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the President of the Treasury Board make a statement forthwith as to whether it is the policy of the government to move the survey and mapping branch of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to Sherbrooke, or whether that move has been abandoned because of the uncertainty it is causing for those public servants employed in that branch.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that our foundering economy has resulted in a 37 per cent increase in unemployment insurance applications in British Columbia over the last year, and in view of the fact that this mass of unemployed has swamped Manpower offices resulting in a two-month backlog in the handling of unemployment insurance claims, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly):
That this House instruct the minister to have his regional unemployment officials hire whatever new staff is necessary to handle the backlog and to write emergency cheques so unemployed workers are not forced to apply for social assistance while waiting for their unemployment insurance benefits.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTION BENEFITS BE PAID TO FRESHWATER FISHERMEN- MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas there are thousands of freshwater fishermen across Canada who are obliged to make unemployment insurance contributions but who, at the same time, are unable to collect benefits under this program because their season does not coincide with that of saltwater fishermen, and whereas not only is this situation grossly unfair it is also causing undue hardship for those thousands of fishermen unable to find work in the off-season due to the disastrous state of the economy under this Liberal government, and who are suffering, like all Canadians, from the effects of the government's high interest rate policies, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That the government take action immediately to amend this unjust and discriminatory section of the Unemployment Insurance Act so that unemployment insurance benefits can be received by freshwater and saltwater fishermen alike.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
January 29, 1982


FINANCE
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, in view of the growing concern about family violence, wife battering and sexual assault, and in view of the fact that the Rape Assault Centre in Duncan has not been able to get a tax number as a charity because, in addition to front line work with victims of assault it also works toward change in our antiquated laws, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House instruct the Department of National Revenue to cease its anti-women policy and issue the Duncan Rape Assault Centre with a tax number as a registered charity, and to give such recognition to all rape assault centres across Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of the pending lay-offs, summer shutdowns, and early retirement schemes affecting hundreds of mine, mill and smelter workers in resource communities across Canada, due largely to the government's misguided economic policies and the November 12 budget, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the government withdraw immediately the November 12 budget and take positive steps posthaste to restore economic stability and productivity to this nation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who has been going around claiming he has reduced taxes for some 12 million Canadians. His own figures indicate that a basic
Oral Questions
component of what he calls a tax reduction is simply the continuation of the principle of indexation. Does the minister consider continuation of indexation to be a tax cut?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, of course it has that very effect. It must be regarded as such. The President of the United States is discussing and implementing tax cuts which, in total, globally, are much less than the tax cuts which are provided through annual indexation. As the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows very well, it is an option, at each budget time, for the Minister of Finance to determine what happens to indexation. Indeed, the Conservative Party has recognized that this is an option for the Minister of Finance each year, because before the October budget of last year, that party ran extensive advertisements appealing to the government not to disturb indexation which, in itself, is an important part of tax reductions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FORECASTED INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT REVENUES
Charles Joseph Clark: Well, things are a little clearer now. The minister has admitted that if, indeed, there has been a tax cut for some 12 million Canadians, and that is highly arguable, that it is largely due to indexation. The House knows that the architect of indexation was the Hon. Robert Stanfield.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Therefore, if the minister is saying that there were tax cuts for 12 million Canadians, those tax cuts were introduced by Bob Stanfield.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What he is also saying is that if what he calls tax cuts were protected for Canadians, they were protected because of the advertising program of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. That is what he is saying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Now that we have cleared up a little of that deliberate Cape Breton obscurity, let me ask the Minister of Finance another question.
The Minister of Finance is predicting higher unemployment and low growth rates for the next two years, yet his own budget papers also claim a $3.7 billion increase in revenues coming to the government from the personal income taxes paid in 1982-83 by ordinary Canadians across the country. Will the minister explain how he can reconcile his claim that he is cutting taxes for individual Canadians while gaining nearly $4 billion from these same people?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 29, 1982
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the first point is that we all know that the minister of finance who introduced indexation into the House of Commons was the former minister of finance, Mr. Turner.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Oh, the hero, the darling of the backbenchers!


Mr. Paproski:: What's his name?


Mr. Nielsen:: The new leader!


Mr. Crombie:: You are in trouble when John comes back!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: While I have the greatest admiration for my fellow Nova Scotian, Mr. Stanfield, to my knowledge he has never occupied the post of minister of finance, which would have given him the opportunity to introduce tax legislation to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Right on!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The right hon.-


Erik Nielsen: Now, where was 1?


An hon. Member:: It's Friday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -member, the Leader of the Opposition, has referred to Cape Breton obscurity, and he has a habit of ridiculing that part of Canada, which I find to be rather upsetting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But I would remind the hon. member-


Erik Nielsen: Right honourable member.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that in the budget tax tables the source of all the tax cuts is clearly laid out, and indexation is included among those. There is absolutely no obscurity. What is obscure is the hon. member's-


Erik Nielsen: Right honourable.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -grasp of the information which ought to be available to him.
Now the hon. member-


Erik Nielsen: Right honourable!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -talks about tax cuts. 1 have stated and repeat that in January, 1982, the total amount of tax deductions implemented in Canada comes to $3 billion. If that had not taken place, let me explain to the right hon. gentleman that the volume of tax collections would have been increased by that amount.


BASIS FOR TAX PROPOSALS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me say that I intended no slight upon Cape Breton. The only, most outstanding, and perhaps the singular example of Cape Breton obscurity is the person of the Minister of Finance. I am sure the people of Cape Breton would be as delighted to get rid of that obscurity as would the members of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am not going to argue with the minister whether it was John Turner or Bob Stanfield who introduced the tax cuts that he claims are in the budget. The point is he did not do it, and he should stop pretending to the people of Canada that he did.
I would like some clarification from this minister who claims he is cutting the taxes of people from whom he is claiming $4 billion more. Let me ask the minister the following question. He is saying that in effect the continuation of indexation would be a tax cut for Canadians. The only way it would be a tax cut would be if the income of Canadians did not go up at all, despite inflation. Will the minister tell us whether he based his budget on the assumption that the income of Canadians will not go up this year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I based the budget strategy on the necessity of doing something to control the deficit. That was the basis, in achieving that I attempted to apply the greatest possible expenditure restraint and to gain new revenues. I had an option in gaining new revenues either to make a general tax increase, which 1 rejected, or to attempt to increase the tax base by removing what I considered to be in certain cases unjustified tax preferences. That is the basis of the over-all thrust of the fiscal stance of the budget.


EFFECT OF REMOVING INDEXATION
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question with regard to this indexation. As I understand it, the minister pleads before us to believe that continued indexation is a tax cut. He is nodding in the affirmative. That, by the way, is the same as a notorious killer, having murdered his mother and father, saying to the jury, "Have mercy on me,
I am an orphan." That is exactly what he is saying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: tax increase? Is that what he is saying? He cannot have it both ways.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have not said that. It is evident to me that if indexation had been limited or eliminated, there would be a very great benefit to the treasury.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON INDEXATION
William Herbert Jarvis: Absolutely. Absolutely! When a predecessor of the minister, John Turner, introduced this measure, adopted from Mr. Stanfield, this is what he said, and this was eight years ago:
A person will no longer pay tax at a higher marginal rate simply because inflation swept him into a higher tax bracket.
There was not one word from the then Liberal finance minister or any member of the government that indexation was a tax decrease. It was an adoption of a progressive tax reform-not a word about increase. It was to prevent the government from having a vested interest in inflation. That is what it was for.
Does that principle which was enunciated by his predecessor, John Turner, continue to be a principle of this government and of this Minister of Finance? If that is the case, will he now stop misleading taxpayers by alleging that continued indexation is any kind of a tax reduction whatsoever?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is quite evident that if indexation had been eliminated, or had been limited in some way-


An hon. Member:: Taxes would have increased.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Taxes would have increased.
Prior to the budget of November, 1981, there was a great deal of speculation, which I had not originated-


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes you did.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that it was my intention to eliminate indexation. Members opposite raised a very strong protest on the understanding in their minds that that would have been a tax increase. When indexation is retained, it is a tax cut. That is very clear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition later. At this point in the
Oral Questions
question period I do have to recognize the hon. member for Oshawa.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the new Minister of State for International Trade. In Canada today there are 50,000 auto workers on lay-off, 21,000 of whom are not likely ever to be able to return to their jobs. Because of the failure of the minister's predecessors in Industry, Trade and Commerce to insist that the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact be lived up to, we have 15,000 fewer jobs than we ought to have. Will the minister take immediate steps in exercising his responsibility to ensure that this pact is lived up to so those 15,000 Canadians who ought to have jobs in this industry, because of that pact, will get them?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, first of all, 1 would like to say that no one has ever worked harder for the Canadian automobile industry than my colleague, the hon. member for Windsor West.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre:: You have identified the problem. Let us have the solution.


Edward C. Lumley: Last year, for the first time in our history, this government made an effort to obtain export markets for Canadian automobiles. We were successful in obtaining the largest single contract in export markets ever in the history of Canada, for Canadian automobiles. In Iraq we sold 13,000 cars worth over $100 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: We on this side of the House are not as pessimistic about the future of the automobile industry as the hon. member alleges.


QUERY RESPECTING INVESTMENT IN CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, if hard work by his predecessor produced 50,000 lay-offs for the Canadian automobile worker and a shortfall of 15,000 permanent jobs, I hope that the present minister will fall asleep, if he says that is what hard work will do.
I do not want to joke about this. That pact has been in existence since 1965, as the minister knows, and in the first clause of that pact it says that both countries were to share on a fair and equitable basis in future growth. That has not happened. We now have a lower percentage of jobs in that industry in Canada, compared to our sales, than we had before the pact came into existence. That is a disgrace for which the government and no one else is responsible.

January 29, 1982
Oral Questions
I would ask the minister, quite apart from export sales to other countries, which are important, will he take immediate steps to ensure that the major producers in North America live up to the letter of the auto pact and ensure that we get investment in Canada proportionate to our purchases in this country, so that we will get our fair share of jobs?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party understands that both the United States and Canada are experiencing severe domestic decline in our automobile industries.


John Edward Broadbent: We have had greater decline.


Edward C. Lumley: One of our major concerns is that if the North American automobile industry improves the North American share of the world market, this will ensure jobs for Canadians for many years.
With respect to the implementation of the auto pact we are determined that Canada will attain its fair share and that the letter of the auto pact will be followed by both our countries.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, we are looking forward to the concrete realization of that goal. All the minister's predecessors have failed, since 1965, to achieve that goal, and we want to see some evidence from the minister soon that there is a new approach being taken by the Government of Canada.


REQUEST THAT JAPANESE AND EUROPEANS UNDERTAKE MANUFACTURING IN CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about a different aspect of the auto industry. Considering that imports from Japan as well as some European countries are increasing their share of the Canadian market, I would like to ask the minister whether, in fairness to Canadian consumers as well as workers, the Government of Canada will enter into agreements with those offshore producers to obtain from them a commitment to start producing in Canada either parts or assembled vehicles equivalent to what they are selling to Canadian consumers, so that we will get some of those jobs we need in this industry, and to which we are entitled.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, at the present time the United States has a three-year agreement with respect to Japanese imports from Japanese automobile manufacturers. We happen to have a one-year agreement, and we will be initiating discussions next week with the Japanese under the terms of our agreement. My colleague, the hon. member for Windsor West and I have both made trips to Japan and talked to authorities there, both in the private sector and in the government, to try to encourage exactly what the hon. member suggests, the purchase of more Canadian parts for cars from that country sold in Canada.


THE BUDGET
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I want to try to clear up the most recent fraud the Minister of Finance is trying to perpetrate on the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: In admitting now that the basis for his claiming to reduce taxes is that he has kept in place the indexing proposal, the minister is saying that he has cut taxes by leaving in place an element of the tax system which was already there. That is what he is saying. Just following that logic along, I want to ask the minister whether he will be arguing, in a subsequent budget he might introduce in a couple of months, or at any other time, that continuing the $100 charitable exemption or any other exemption that is available-for example, for pension contributions, for children or for spouses, other exemptions which are already in the tax system-will also be a tax cut. Is that his logic?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, just to clear up the first point, I have said that the basis of my claim that there has been a very substantial tax cut amounting in deductions to $3 billion this year is not entirely indexation. That is part of it. There is also the reduction in the marginal tax rate, and there is also the reduction in the federal tax credit, which has benefited and will benefit over a million low and medium-income families in Canada. Taken together, the indexation, the cuts in the marginal tax rates, and the restructuring of the federal tax credit, that is the total basis.
I am not forecasting what arguments might be necessary in the future to meet the rather erroneous position taken by the Leader of the Opposition this morning, yesterday, the day before yesterday, and probably on into the future.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS CALCULATION OF PROVINCIAL REVENUES
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. A front-page story by Andrew Szende in the Toronto Star this morning reports revised Department of Finance calculations that provincial revenues for health, post-secondary education and other services will be slashed on a net basis by $4.5 billion over the next five years. That estimate is twice the size of the one contained in the minister's budget when he brought it down on November 12.
Will the minister confirm those revised calculations, and will he not admit that the new figures will almost definitely force the provinces to cut back substantially vital services to their

people and to increase taxes in order to cope with the shortfall?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 have not had an opportunity to examine that particular article; therefore, I cannot comment on the figures quoted. However, it is my contention that the proposals which I have placed before the provinces will improve the fiscal position of the provinces each year during the course of that five-year period. Even with the proposed elimination of the revenue guarantee, for each province, taking into account the total transfers there will be and the tax offsets which were provided in the budget, these transfers will grow on an annual basis quite significantly.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REVIEW FORMULA
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He does not have to see the Toronto Star article. It was based on documents made available by the minister himself to the provinces on Friday in anticipation of the negotiations on the economy with the premiers this coming week. In light of that, and in light of the fact also that the minister has already made one multimillion dollar error-$660 million, to be exact-in calculating the impact of his budget on provincial revenues over the next five years, is he therefore reviewing the projected impact of his new formula for equalization payments to ensure that he is not also underestimating the harm that proposal will inflict on the have-not provinces of the country? I am thinking in particular of the Atlantic provinces.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I had a meeting last week with the ministers of finance, and I will be meeting with them again next week. The question of equalization is very much at the fore. We have been considering the Ontario standard, which is the proposal I have made to the provinces. As a result of representations made by ministers I have made some adjustments to the Ontario standard as it was first proposed. I think we all understand fully the impact that formula will have. It will flow additional funds each year into the equalization-receiving provinces.

[ Translation]


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE QUEBEC WILL NOT LOSE SUBSIDIES
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for Quebec affairs. In view of the present lack of communication between the governments in Ottawa and Quebec City, a situation that has been deplored on both sides of the House, I should like to remind the minister that, as the leader of the Liberal caucus has pointed out, Quebec might lose two subsidies-one for $11
Oral Questions
million for the modernization of pulp and paper plants and another for $30 million for the Montreal convention centre. In the circumstances and considering the agreements that have already been finalized for some time, can the minister give us the assurance that Quebec will not lose the subsidies?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Minister of State):: I wish to thank the hon. member for Joliette for his question. Regarding the subsidiary agreement signed with the government of Quebec with a view to modernizing the pulp and paper industry, I can inform the hon. member that the total envelope provides for $240 million in funds; to date, $200 million have been committed to specific projects, which leaves another $40 million. There are a number of projects on the table that could be covered by the remaining amount, but to do so, a satisfactory agreement must be reached by representatives of both governments. As for the subsidiary agreement on tourism, it is a fact that the Canadian government has offered to contribute $24 million for the convention centre. Early in December, representatives of the Quebec government informed representatives of the Government of Canada that they were willing to accept this amount which, at first, they had refused. So as far as the Montreal convention centre is concerned, we shall soon be able to announce that documents have been signed and the designated funds transferred.
The remaining aspects of the agreement on tourism which concern the ski industry and the renovation of Old Montreal are still being discussed, but to date it has been impossible to reach any agreement on specific projects.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, yesterday I was informed by a very reliable source that officials of the two departments in Quebec City are now negotiating and discussing the subsidies with their federal counterparts. At this point, could the minister give us the assurance that, contrary to the views of the hon. member for Longueuil, there is no danger that Quebec will lose the subsidies if they are not claimed before March 30. It seems that negotiations between senior officials of both governments are taking shape.


Serge Joyal: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Longueuil was correct in saying that a real danger exists in this respect. I mean that without immediate and close co-operation between both levels of government, Quebec may not be getting all the benefits defined in the agreements. The representative for Quebec failed to attend a federal-provincial conference on tourism held on December 10 and 11 of last year. It is clear that if Quebec had been present at this federal-provincial meeting, the funds earmarked for Old Montreal and the ski industry could have been used immediately, which unfortunately is not the case. Consequently, if the hon. member for Joliette has any influence with the Quebec government's representatives, he should make the point that co-operation is the best policy to ensure that Quebec will receive substantial economic benefits.

January 29, 1982
Oral Questions


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In the case of the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. spill at Tunney's Pasture there were numerous examples of lax emergency procedures, such as I shall enumerate. There was no established plan of action in the event of a spill; some workers left the dangerous area without being inspected for contamination; cleaning staff reported to work without being informed of the spill or its potential dangers; workers reported to work the next day and the area was still not decontaminated, and there were no shower facilities for women workers in the operation.
Does the minister not feel that this is yet another example of federal workers not being adequately protected by the laws of this land and by the safety procedures of government-operated facilities?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, the hon. member probably knows that the workers in the various buildings are protected and that a number of measures are taken by different departments. We in Labour Canada do not have jurisdiction in most of the cases the hon. member has mentioned this morning. Nevertheless, I will take his advice as notice and look into the question.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE ACTION
Rodney Edward Murphy: That is exactly the point, Madam Speaker. We have been waiting for a number of years for the government to introduce changes to Part IV of the Canada Labour Code. This is the section which deals with occupational health and safety for workers. Is it not time that the government finally introduced this important legislation and, speaking to the ministers concerned, is it not time that we protected all federal workers under that umbrella legislation and that we made sure that no other legislation interferes? The minister admits that that is a problem at the AECL plant. He should do something about it.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, I have received a number of letters from all sides of the House urging the introduction of amendments to the Canada Labour Code. 1 hope that, when a measure is introduced, which I hope will be very soon, it will be given speedy passage by all members of the House so that we can reach the objectives that everyone has at heart, including this particular matter.


FINANCE
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. One of the provisions that concerns some of my constituents with respect to the recent budget is that which amends Section 80.4(1) of the Income Tax Act relating to the non-inclusion in income of the interest element of employer-provided mortgages to employees. While that may well be regarded as one of the loopholes, the problem is that some people have moved at the request of their employer and found that accommodation in the new location was much more expensive than the accommodation they could afford at their previous residence.
Some of my constituents have found themselves in that position, and the consequence is that it will cost them at the very minimum $200 per month extra after tax as a result of the move. I wonder if the minister might consider the circumstances that relate to this amendment introduced in the budget, upon people who have been obliged to move at the request of their employer and now find themselves caught in this unfortunate position?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I understand the concerns that the hon. member has raised. Representations have been made to me on this subject. I have introduced these changes in order, in a sense, to establish a more common treatment of compensation. That is the purpose of the proposal in Section 80.4(1), as the hon. member has reminded us. However, he has asked me to consider his views, and I shall certainly do that. We will have an opportunity, as members of the House of Commons, to consider each of these proposals in detail when the tax measures come before the committee.


REQUEST THAT PROVISION AFFECTING MORTGAGES BE POSTPONED
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, further to that issue I have one more question for the minister. Obviously what has happened is that taxpayers have relied upon specific provisions of the Income Tax Act which were implemented by a former Liberal government, and which this Liberal government now wishes to remove. This is equivalent to one government setting a snare and another government tripping that snare and catching the taxpayer.
I should like to ask the minister if it would not be appropriate that an arrangement be made so that the mortgages that are now in place, and implemented, as a consequence of that trap or snare set by the government, at least be permitted to go their full course before the tax provision to which the minister refers is implemented?


Erik Nielsen: Spring the trap on the minister!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as I said to the hon.
January 29, 1982

member, his representations will be considered, as will the representations of all members, when we are considering the bills in committee. I can certainly assure the hon. member that his particular views on this matter will be scrutinized very carefully.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The minister is probably aware that when one contracts multiple sclerosis in the Armed forces it is not considered a disability and does not qualify for a disability pension. 1 understand that recently in the United States the veterans affairs administration decided to include MS as being pensionable. 1 wonder if the minister is prepared to give similar consideration to this, because there are a number of Armed Forces personnel who have contracted MS in the service and are not entitled to a pension.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the answer is yes.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. On December 1, 1981, the management of Riverport Seafoods Limited informed the minister that it would commence a program of reconstruction of its plant which was destroyed by fire on September 26, 1981-which put some 600 people out of work-if the government made a commitment to reconstruct the wharf which was also destroyed by the fire. When no answer was received, this request was repeated by telex on December 22. Still no answer has been received.
Since more than four months have passed since this disastrous fire, I would ask the minister if his officials have completed their surveys of the damage and when we can expect a statement concerning the government's plans for this area.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member can read Hansard if he was not in the House. Certainly 1 did answer very clearly that if the plant was rebuilt the facilities would be prepared to accommodate the fishermen who landed their fish and that, if the plant was not rebuilt, then of course we might be dealing with a different situation. We would look at it to ensure that fishermen had the necessary facilities in that
Oral Questions
district. But if the company has a firm plan to rebuild, and if it is not sent to me through the newspapers, then obviously that commitment will be honoured in the next fiscal year, April 1.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE COMMITMENT
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I am very well aware of the minister's statement, for he made it to me in committee. He avoided my original question this morning by stating that if the company makes concrete plans the commitment will be honoured. I hope he will reread my question wherein I stated that the company has already sent him not one but two firm notices that it will rebuild, if the government makes a commitment to reconstruct the wharf. If any activity is to take place at Riverport, the company requires some lead time, since it cannot proceed unless it is certain that the wharf will be reconstructed. Will the minister make that commitment today and not roam all over the lot? Will he just make a commitment today so that management can make concrete plans to proceed with development in this area?


Erik Nielsen: Yes or no.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, devoid of the rhetoric and the gesticulation, 1 would say very simply that, if a decision is made to rebuild the plant, we will have facilities to accommodate the fishermen who have to land fish.


FINANCE
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Because the budget contains no job-creation measures for students, and since the government high interest rate policy is discouraging business investment and expansion for job creation, many recent graduates of colleges and universities are unemployed and are unable to repay their student loans. Will the minister consider placing a moratorium on student loan repayments for registered unemployed students?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will be glad to consider the hon. member's representation on that point.


EMPLOYMENT
Laverne Lewycky: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I have with me, for example, a letter

January 29, 1982
Oral Questions
from a frustrated job-seeking graduate who must begin her $1,800 loan repayment on February 1, 1982. What job-creation measures or help will the minister be providing for students who are registered with his department but cannot find jobs to repay loans which are coming due? Will he work toward a moratorium on loan repayments if graduates are registered with his department?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, it may be of interest to the hon. member and perhaps other hon. members of the House to know that in the current fiscal year the federal government, through its federal job-creation programs, will be providing over 100,000 direct employment jobs in the country. This is a significant contribution to keeping people, particularly young people, in the job market. As part of that program we have instituted a major summer employment program which hires people both for work in the federal public service and in a number of community projects. Furthermore, it provides placement opportunities for close to 300,000 Canadian students.
We are very aware of the need to provide for Canadian students alternative employment and summer employment. We have those programs in place. If the hon. member would check his own desk he would know that he has already received information about how he can develop projects in his constituency to help students work this summer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. I am sorry I could not give the minister notice; I sent it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question concerns the bilateral Canada-United States air talks which are now in progress. I want to ask the minister whether, in addition to the five routes from western Canada and three from Toronto, at least one from the Atlantic provinces will be added to the list of priority routes which are now under discussion?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I regret that I cannot be specific. The discussions are ongoing, as my hon. friend said. I admit that they are quite difficult and that the negotiating parties have not yet arrived at a determination of routes. They are still debating more fundamental issues, for example, who at the moment is receiving the most from the bilateral air agreement because of charters? Are the American carriers obtaining an unfair percentage of traffic because of the scheduled routes? Canada maintains on the scheduled side that it gains less. What should be the role of cargo transportation in the agreement? In other
words, we are trying to clear the basic principles. We are not yet at the distribution of routes stage. I will report to my hon. friend in due course.


IMPORTANCE OF FRESH FISH AIR FREIGHT
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. In his answer he touched upon the cargo feature, which is the basis of my supplementary question. With the decline of the frozen fish market and the growing increase of the fresh fish market in the United States, will the minister consider the cargo export potential for air transport of such primary products from Atlantic Canada to the United States of America, in addition to the commercial and passenger role, in defining priorities for negotiation? My advice is that the five routes which are established as priorities from western Canada and the three from Toronto are now in the course of negotiation. My concern is that the primary product in Atlantic Canada has an export potential which I would like weighted in connection with the considerations.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I can only take the questions as notice. I will look into it with that particular regional preoccupation in mind and report to my hon. friend earlier on that subject than on the previous one.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister tell us whether it is still within the contemplation of the government to develop a taxation data centre in the national capital region? Is the site at the corner of Woodroffe Avenue and Baseline Road in the city of Nepean one of the sites being considered within the area for such a facility?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the short answer is yes, it is one of the seven taxation data centres which were considered across the country. There will be one in the Ottawa area. I can tell the hon. member that that is one of the sites being considered, but I must also say that it is not the only one. We have not finalized the site at this time.


DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, it does not surprise me at all that the government might be considering other sites. Is it within the contemplation of the government that a decision might be made in the near future? I do not want to tie the minister down, but might it be made within 1982?
January 29, 1982


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, the item must go through the regular government process. We will try to advance it as quickly as possible. It depends on the available funds, Public Works programming, and so on, but it is my intention to advance it as quickly as possible. Hopefully we will see some start this spring.


AIRPORTS
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Given that there are some 1,000 airports in Canada, I am sure we all welcome the brochure which crossed our desks indicating that funding will be available if particular standards are met with respect to obtaining help. However, as the minister knows, representations have already been made by some airports across Canada, and some commitments have been made. Will those commitments be carried through, notwithstanding the new policy of meeting these particular guidelines?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am not too sure to which program my hon. friend is referring, because we have many programs for airport construction.


William Herbert Jarvis: It was just placed on our desks yesterday.


Erik Nielsen: Don't you know what you send out?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 am particularly aware of the situation in Sarnia. If the hon. member has in mind his particular regional airport, I want to assure him that progress is being made and that I have that particular subject very much in mind. I agree with him that the Sarnia airport is not at par in relation to the importance of the city and the area in the Canadian economy.
Petitions


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the Hudson Transport incident on the St. Lawrence occurred just off the south shore of the St. Lawrence. At the present time, the Department of Transport and my own department are carrying out a joint investigation to find out exactly what caused the incident in which a number of people lost their lives. I would rather not comment on what has been said in the press or elsewhere. I prefer to wait until the investigators publish their findings and we shall then be able to see whether any negligence was involved or there were situations that could perhaps be corrected in the future.


REQUEST THAT EFFICIENT PROTECTION MEASURES BE ADOPTED IN MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker.
In view of the absence altogether of rescue helicopters in the province of Quebec, I wonder whether the minister could inform the parties concerned, including the seamen and other parties, that the situation will be remedied as soon as possible so as to provide merchant seamen with more effective protection in the Gulf?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, without wishing to anticipate the conclusions of the investigation, I feel that as far as I am able to judge, there have been no deficiencies in this respect. I do not believe that having a helicopter on duty on the south shore could have prevented the loss of life that occurred in this case. However, before making any kind of judgment in this respect, I would much rather wait until the conclusions of the investigation are available.
* *
*
* *
*

NATIONAL DEFENCE	* 02001
THE "HUDSON TRANSPORT" SHIPWRECK-ABSENCE OF RESCUE [English] HELICOPTERS IN QUEBEC


PETITIONS
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Considering the inexcusable loss of Canadian lives when a Canadian ship, the Hudson Transport, sank in the Gulf of St. Lawrence on December 25 of last year, and the fact that these people could have been saved if a rescue helicopter had been on duty in the province of Quebec, either on the north or south shore, could the minister inform the House why that was not the case?


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the one hundred and seventy-second report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) on Thursday, January 28, 1982, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

January 29, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Bosley PRIVILEGE


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, I have a question of privilege that arises from the Oral Question Period this morning. I hope you will hear me out; 1 am not trying to engage in debate. My question of privilege has to do with the misuse of House of Commons facilities by members on the government side. It relates to the fundamentals on which the House of Commons must operate in order to maintain its integrity in the eyes of the Canadian people.
Very briefly, my questions this morning related to documents released on Friday to the provinces by the Department of Finance in anticipation of the federal-provincial negotiations that will be under way this coming week on the economy. Those documents make very clear that the federal government's figures in the budget of November 12, 1981, will have the net effect of slashing provincial revenues over the next five years by $4.5 billion. In contrast with the slash in provincial revenues mentioned in the budget itself, namely, $1.9 billion, the minister revised his figures because of incompetence and an error-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order. No argument, please. It is quite obvious to me that this might be a marvellous matter for debate, but it is certainly not a question of privilege.


Charles Joseph Clark: Hear him out, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, but it is quite obvious that the hon. member is discussing a document. It is a marvellous subject for debate but it is not a question of privilege.


Charles Joseph Clark: You cannot judge that yet.


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I recognize the importance of privilege and therefore I rise at the earliest possible moment to bring to the attention of the House a matter that I believe deeply affects members' privileges. It relates to the budget. It is a separate matter, Madam Speaker.
All members of the House have found it virtually impossible to sell Canadians the virtue of the budget, and if there is a way to sell the budget that was adopted by this House and which forms House policy, I believe-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, this is information that affects Members of Parliament.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. 1 would like to know whether his question of privilege flows from today's question period or whether it is a question of privilege that he is bringing forth about a matter that occurred to him some time before.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege relates to information that was provided to me within the last hour relating to the budget. I have no alternative but to present it to you and ask you whether you will consider it.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I think there is information being circulated-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please resume his seat. I need some information and therefore I need to ask a question of the hon. member. Is he raising a question of privilege that flows immediately from the deliberations that we had in this House this morning? 1 must tell the hon. member that if he has a question of privilege relating to something else, then he does have to give me notice and I will hear him on Monday. However, if this question of privilege arose directly from deliberations or a statement made in this House in the course of today's question period, I can hear him now, otherwise I cannot.


John William Bosley: Yes, Madam Speaker, it does relate to information presented in question period today.
Information provided by the government in my view should be provided to all members. This is the privilege of all members. I am speaking about information which the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) produced with regard to the budget during question period today. If members are to deal with the matter adequately, whatever information the minister produces and uses during question period to deal with the budget should be provided to all members.
My question of privilege is as follows. It has come to my attention that the Liberal government last evening held a school for Liberal backbenchers in an attempt to teach them how to sell the unsellable to Canadians. The example of the quality of that school today occurred when the Minister of Finance pretended that a cut from $500 to $200 in a tax credit is a decrease in tax-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It seems that if the Chair does not get up to interrupt the hon. member and tell him he does not have a question of privilege, somebody else will. I am afraid that the hon. member has no question of privilege. He recognizes that he is engaging in debate. That is perfectly legitimate, but not at this time.
January 29, 1982

mr. mcmillan-alleged misuse of house of commons


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am rather concerned about the manner in which the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) was unable to develop the question he wished to place before the Chair. I did not know that he was going to raise this question. Obviously, it arose from proceedings during question period. I was anticipating that it might be based on the fact that the minister supplied certain information to the provinces which has been published in one of the more prominent Toronto papers with respect to the changes the minister intends to put to the provincial ministers. That information is now in the public domain.
It may be that is the basis for the hon. member's question of privilege. But with great respect to the Chair and without any reflection on the Chair, I was waiting for that aspect to be developed. If that is the basis, then the provision of such information to Members of Parliament, as well as to the other recipients who have it in their possession, indeed would form the basis of at least the submission of an argument for the Chair to consider as a question of privilege. This is particularly so in light of the continued questioning which took place this week on budgetary matters on opposition day last Tuesday, which will no doubt continue on the opposition day coming up next week. In other words, the current interest and the current questioning of the government on budgetary measures has been the constant attention of members of this House.
I was waiting for the hon. member to state as the basis for his question of privilege that the government had provided information to others but not to Members of Parliament, which information was published in one of the more prominent newspapers in Toronto. If that is the basis of his question, I would suggest that the Chair might wish to hear the hon. member out in order that we can determine whether the Chair might wish to hear others on the subject.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is confirming the ruling that I have just made. I did understand the basis of the question of privilege to be exactly what the hon. member has stated.
I am sure the hon. member knows that the fact the government issues information to certain bodies and not to others is not the basis for a question of privilege. The government sometimes issues information to their own caucus, to all members of the House, sometimes to the premiers of the different provinces. The way in which the government administers its affairs might be a marvellous subject for debate; indeed it has often been debated in the House and probed in question period as to why this kind of information has not been disseminated universally. These debates take place constantly in the House, as they should, but they do not form the basis of a question of privilege.
I am afraid I have acquired a lot of experience in dealing with questions of privilege. Members will, I think, want to reflect on the fact that, in the course of the time I have been in
Privilege-Mr. McMillan
the chair, I have only had to consider one question of privilege, brought up, I think, by an hon. member on this side of the House and resolved before I had time to rule on it, which was founded. So I would say, and I will bring out the statistics, that the overwhelming majority of the questions of privilege I have heard were not founded. This one, taking into account the statements of the hon. member for Hillsborough and the hon. member for Yukon's confirmation of his understanding of what the hon. member said, leads me to insist that indeed, I am sorry, the hon. member does not have a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, with great respect, that was not the point of my rising. I do not know, because we did not hear enough, what the hon. member for Hillsborough was basing his question of privilege on. When I rose to speak in the first instance I said that I did not know what foundation he was laying. I do not know yet what his question is going to be. My point is, with the greatest respect for the Chair, that enough has to be heard by members and the Chair-


Mr. Collenette:: We heard it.


Erik Nielsen: Well, if the ex-parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council would hear me out, he would understand this is an entirely different question. I do not want to engage in debate; I wish to point out emphatically and as clearly as 1 can, Madam Speaker, that we at least as members, and you as the occupant of the chair, are entitled to hear sufficient in order to determine what the hon. member's question is. I say to you in all sincerity and honesty that I hypothesized that it might be what I submitted to you, but 1 do not know. Surely, Madam Speaker, we should know in a brief statement-


David Michael Collenette: You are not the Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: I wish you would shut that jackal up, Madam Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Jackass, not jackal.


Erik Nielsen: We should at least hear enough to know what the foundation is-one or two or three sentences, the member can do it-so we know his argument. I do not know what it is.


Madam Speaker:: Well, it was clear to me when the hon. member made his statement what formed the basis of his question of privilege, and on that basis I ruled it out. Now, that is within my discretion. I think it has to be accepted or else very formally challenged.
If the hon. member feels that he is not satisfied with my ruling, I would like him to give me in writing in my office the further arguments and elaboration on this question of privilege that he wanted to make today. I will read them there and I am certain I will not reach a different conclusion. On the basis of the argument that he made in his first sentences, I ruled that he did not have a question of privilege, and it is on that basis that I make all my rulings in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 29, 1982


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, 1 will, as you have suggested, write down my question of privilege in a way that I have not been allowed to elaborate in this House. The opposition House leader said he did not hear enough of my argument to know what in fact it was. He admitted that he was ignorant of my question of privilege and proffered a guess as to what I had in mind. The very fact that his guess was dead wrong, even if it conformed with your understanding of my question of privilege, confirms and corroborates the argument he was making that I was not given enough time to present to this House my question of privilege-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I will receive the hon. member's arguments, but it is on the understanding that it will not come back for discussion in the House. This is just a test we will be making between the two of us. The ruling is there and I have to stand by it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by nearly 450 students from Port Coquitlam secondary school in the province of British Columbia protesting Canadian involvement in the manufacture of new nuclear weapons. The students support their position by citing the devastation a nuclear war would inflict and the futility of civil defence capacity to deal with the resulting injury, death and destruction. Further, the students call upon the government to support vigorously the UN in its efforts to bring about world disarmament.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   NATIONAL REVENUE DEDUCTION OF TAX WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has given notice of his intention to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26, and I would hear a brief statement from him.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Green-wood (Mr. Rae), under Standing Order 26, that the House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent
and pressing necessity, namely, that the Ministry of National Revenue is counselling employers in this country to deduct income tax from the wages of employees for which no legislative authority has been sought or given. The collection of the said tax by these employers under the circumstances outlined may be placing them in a legally indefensible position.


Madam Speaker:: I have received notice of and looked at the statement the hon. member has just made. It must be understood that the Speaker's only duty is to determine if the request for an immediate debate meets the requirements of Standing Order 26, in that it is imperative that the matter be debated right away and the daily business of the House set aside.
One condition for such a debate, as enumerated under Standing Order 26(16), is that:
The matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration;-
In his written statement, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, in my view, has not established that clearly and precisely. He has not established that there was a genuine emergency when he said, and I am using his words:
The collection of the said tax by these employers . . . may be-
1 emphasize the words "may be".
-placing them in a legally indefensible position.
The matter which the hon. member brings before the House is an important one which probably ought to be debated at some time; but I cannot see my way clear to set aside the business of the House in order to allow it to be debated under the provisions of Standing Order 26. Therefore. I regret that I must reject the hon. member's application.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,758, 2,770, 2,771 and 3,536.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. Hal Gethings at any time employed as food and beverage manager for the National Arts Centre and, if so (a) was he appointed subsequent to a recommendation by the Auditor General concerning the operation of restaurant facilities at the Arts Centre (b) did restaurant and beverage operations move from a deficit to a profit under Mr. Gethings?
2.	Was Mr. Gethings visited by Mr. Don Marriott and was Mr. Gethings confronted with a letter already prepared for him to sign in which he was to resign from the Arts Centre staff and, if so (a) what was the date of the visit (b) did Mr. Gethings refuse to give his resignation and was he subsequently offered seven months' salary to resign?
January 29, 1982

3.	(a) Did Mr. Gethings resign (b) was Mr. Marriott appointed Director of Restaurants and Catering of the Arts Centre and, if so, on what date?


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the National Arts Centre as follows:
1.	Mr. Hal Gethings has been employed by the National Arts Centre as Manager, Catering and Restaurants.
(a)	Pursuant to a recommendation by the Auditor General, the National Arts Centre created the position of "Manager, Catering and Restaurants"; Mr. Gethings was engaged to fill the position.
(b)	During the term of Mr. Gethings' employment, under the direct supervision of the Director of Operations, Mr. Christian Gurney, the Restaurants and Catering Department showed a book surplus in the last two of the three fiscal years which terminated during this period, whereas in the previous years of operation the department had shown a book surplus in only one fiscal year (1971-72).
2.	No.
3.	(a) Yes.
(b) Mr. Marriott was appointed Director of Restaurants and Catering for the National Arts Centre on April 1, 1979.


Mr. Cossitt: Were grievances submitted by employees of the National Arts Centre, including those working under the direction or control of Mr. Donald Marriott, Director of Restaurants and Catering, since Mr. Marriott assumed that position and, if so (a) how many and how many concerned Mr. Marriott directly or indirectly (b) were complaints received at any time about harassment of employees by Mr. Marriott?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I am informed by the National Arts Centre as follows: Yes.
(a) and (b) Forty-one grievances have been submitted of which 21 relate to the department for which Mr. Marriott is responsible; further details of these complaints would be considered internal, personal and confidential information.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a camel sculpture ordered under the direction of Mr. Donald Marriott, Director of Restaurants and Catering, for a wine bar at the National Arts Centre and, if so (a) at what cost (b) did his superiors consider it tasteless and not usable?
2.	Was it disposed of and, if so, what are all the details?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I am informed by the National Arts Centre as follows:
1.	Yes. (a) $300. (b) No.
2.	The sculpture was used as part of a promotional scheme for a wine bar called "The Oasis" and later donated to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario by the NAC staff who
Canagrex Act
contributed $171 toward its cost. The remainder of the original cost was charged to promotion.


Mr. Cossitt: What is a list of all persons, departments, etc. that have access to the use of the government-leased telephone line 345-0001, from Brockville in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville, other than the Member of Parliament for the constituency?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows: The Brockville telephone number 345-0001 is an access number to the government Brockville-Ottawa intercity facilities. As such, after dialing 345-0001, any holder of an appropriate authorization call code can obtain usage of the government network.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan that Bill C-85 to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday I had the opportunity to make a few comments with respect to this bill. I understand that I have about 36 minutes left in which to make my remarks.
Last Wednesday the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) attempted to table a statement in this House listing the accomplishments of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). He said there were some 50 items on the list. I suggest that if the minister's list of accomplishments were so lengthy, the farming community would be shouting from the rooftops, "How great thou art, Mr. Minister". However, I have not heard the farming community shouting such exhorta-

January 29, 1982
Canagrex Act
tions; it will not, because the agricultural community in Canada is in very serious trouble.
There is nothing at all in the budget to help alleviate the situation. Of course, the Minister of Agriculture will say that there are some changes in the Farm Credit Corporation Act which will provide $50 million for those farmers and producers who are in trouble. That $50 million is only a drop in the bucket.
The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) will suggest that the changes to provide for the Small Business Development Bond are such that they will help those farmers who are in trouble; but the banks are simply not lending on the Small Business Development Bond because the terms set down by this government are such that a borrower must be in serious financial difficulty. There is no government guarantee on a small business development bond and, for that reason, the banks look at the borrower, the individual who is in trouble, and treat the individual in the same manner as they would any other borrower. If he is in financial difficulty, and the chances are that he will be unable to pay the loan, he cannot benefit from that bond.
Why is agriculture in trouble? First of all, it is in trouble because of the high interest rates created by this government. Even the Farm Credit Corporation rate of 16.75 per cent is an unbearable burden. The bank rates, of course, are higher than 16.75 per cent. They are in the neighbourhood of 20 per cent, 21 per cent or 22 per cent.
What does this mean to the farmer? It means that if a farmer is buying land at, say, $1,000 an acre, which is not an unusual or unrealistic price as much land in the prairies is being sold for more than $1,000 an acre, and with the Farm Credit Corporation interest rate of 16.75 per cent, this farmer will have to pay $167.50 a year in interest on each acre. Most farmers in the west, because of climatic conditions, operate their farms on a two-year rotation: one year of summerfallow and one year of crop. In other words, one must produce a sufficient amount on one acre to pay the interest on two acres. Therefore, at 16.75 per cent interest, one must produce $335 on one acre to pay the interest on two acres. If one relates that to the price of grain today, which is approximately $6 a bushel, that means that one must produce 50 bushels to the acre in order to pay the interest costs.
However, on top of one's interest costs, one must pay back part of the capital. Where does that come from? Then, of course, one has input costs. Input costs and interest rates are killing the farmer today. Over the Christmas holidays, I spoke to a farmer who farms north of Moose Jaw. He told me that without taking fertilizer and crop sprays into consideration, his input costs are over $50 an acre. He must produce almost another ten bushels to the acre to pay the input costs, and these input costs are going up.
What will happen to the farmer? What will happen is that, as a result of the budget, we will see the end of the family farm. The budget will sound its death knell. Under the budget provisions, with the elimination of the IAACs, the elimination of the reserve provisions and the requirement to pay the capital
gains tax up front, I suggest there will be a situation where the family farm will not and cannot be passed on in the family. The result will be that there will be cash sales only. Who will be able to buy this land if the cost of interest and the input costs are such that one cannot produce a sufficient amount to pay the price of the land? I suggest that the only way the land can be sold will be to the land bank, to the government or to large corporations.


Walter David Baker: It certainly won't be to a farmer.


Douglas Charles Neil: That is right. If the land ends up in the land bank or in the hands of the government, we will have a country of tenant farmers.


Donald W. Munro: Communes.


Douglas Charles Neil: Or communes, as my colleague said. I think the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues would like to see this happen, because over the years the minister has spent a great deal of time discussing and promoting supply management. If farmers in Saskatchewan, for example, become tenants of the government and the land bank, it will be no problem for the state to control production, supply, price or the selling of these products.
Canagrex would be an ideal vehicle for the minister under these circumstances. Let us look at Clause 14 of the bill, it is fairly lengthy. The clause sets out the powers of the corporation. I quote 14(1):
Canagrex is established for the purposes of promoting, facilitating and engaging in the export of agricultural products and services and food products and services from Canada to other countries by means of the financial and other powers provided in this act, and for such purposes Canagrex may
(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;
It is not a selling agency. It can do almost anything. It can enter into joint ventures with individuals or corporations. Subclause (g) states that Canagrex can:
-purchase, lease or otherwise acquire and hold real and personal property-
Is that clause in the bill for the purpose of giving the government the power to acquire farm land when the farmer cannot pass it on to his family? Is that what it is for? I thought Canagrex was a selling agency to facilitate the selling of agricultural products, but it is wide open. This is unbelievable. It can get involved as a corporation in every aspect of agriculture.
There is a pattern emerging, one which started to emerge in 1968 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office. Since that time there has been a move away from the free enterprise system, a system which the Liberal Party espoused in those days. It was a system which was serving us well.
I thought that in the years following 1968 we were being led toward a socialist system, but recently I have had serious doubts. What is happening is we are moving toward an elitist
January 29, 1982

system of government, a system of strict government control. This bill is one of the aspects of this government control. Is it a nationalist-socialist system or a move toward the fascist state? I think members opposite would be wise to sit down and consider what is happening in their party and what is happening to our country.
1 notice some smiles on the other side. All one has to do if one is pondering what is happening is to consider the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was passed by resolution in this House and which is now in England, provides for freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press. The hon. member across the way nods. If he reads further in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he will find that the federal government and every provincial government in the country can take away our freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press.


Mr. Cousineau:: What does that have to do with this bill?


Douglas Charles Neil: I suggest this is part of the pattern and design that is taking place. It is the government which passes orders in council and in the event of an emergency, whether there is war or not, allows the release of prisoners and provides for the operation of civilian internment camps.
Let us look at the pattern that is evolving. I suggest the man at the helm knows, but at the moment the passengers on the mythical boat which the Prime Minister spoke about several years ago do not know on what shore they will land.
In May, 1976, a well-known figure in the agricultural field, Alf Presber, prepared a paper with respect to marketing. I have a copy of it. It is entitled "Summary of a Proposal for a Foreign Agricultural Marketing Service in Canada". He lists the objectives. I gather he was concerned about the fact that there had been a splinter approach developing with respect to sales of agricultural products in our country. The provinces were involved and the federal government was involved. He felt a program should be developed to deal with the situation. He suggested a foreign agricultural marketing service for Canada which would be made up of a few key individuals. I will summarize the terms of reference. I quote:
(a)	To bring about effective contact between the Canadian seller of agricultural commodities and prospective foreign buyers
(b)	To initiate sales and sales promotion projects as a co-operative effort between the Canadian seller, industry in general, trade and government(s)
(c)	To attract foreign agricultural processing technique and. . . foreign investment into Canadian agriculture;
(d)	to ascertain and to report in the fastest possible way, if necessary directly to Canadian sales organizations, on marketing opportunities for Canadian primary and processed agricultural products;
(e)	To specialize in the analysis of existing tariff and trade barriers and to search out ways to overcome such barriers;
He saw that this little group of key individuals stationed in various parts of the world with their finger on the pulse could report directly to the Department of Agriculture. He envisaged that eventually there would be a corporation set up like Canagrex to carry out these sales. He said and I quote:
Canagrex Act
The overriding purposes of the foreign agricultural marketing service in Canada is sales-
As far as I am concerned, Canagrex as a corporation should be concerned directly in sales, in co-ordinating sales with foreign governments and the industry in Canada.
I note, Mr. Speaker, that a few days ago there was an article in The Globe and Mail, on January 27, written by Kevin Cox. The headline read "Public misled on export plan, agriculture officials tell Ottawa." 1 will read one or two excerpts from that article. Mr. Cox writes:
The federal Agriculture Department has been accused of misleading the public into thinking there is widespread support for a proposed national agricultural export company.
Agricultural marketing officials from eight provinces have recommended the federal government abandon its plan for the export firm, Canagrex, saying the country lacks the personnel and the finances for such a venture.
It goes on to say that:
The controversy is complicated by the fact that the provincial ministers of agriculture say they support the Canagrex plan, even while in many cases their own marketing directors oppose it.
The article goes on to quote the marketing directors as saying that "State trading is not a general practice in developed countries and is not acceptable to most Canadians." This is the reason the Minister of Agriculture puts forward for Canagrex. He says that we need state to state trading. However, this group involved in agricultural marketing says that is not so.
It is interesting to note that the article goes on to say that Saskatchewan also supported the critique which was in opposition to the government's proposed program of Canagrex, "-fearing that Canagrex might displace provincial marketing boards which export pork and other products."
It seems to me that the critique expresses the concern of Mr. Presber, who said that the sales programs have been splintered because of provincial and federal involvement. It seems to me that effective selling requires the co-operation of the federal and provincial departments of agriculture, the producer and private business with the necessary leadership to bring these groups together, a leadership which the present Minister of Agriculture has not shown.
1 suggest that while the basic concept of this bill is sound, namely, a Crown corporation which would fill in the gap where necessary to encourage or make sales which would not otherwise be made, the bill as it now stands is too all-encompassing. The reason for this is that the name of the game should be sales. It should not be processing, it should not be packaging. The agency should not be involved in joint ventures or the acquiring of land for the purpose of leasing it out. It should deal with sales.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that when this bill goes to committee it should be given substantial consideration. The committee should be able to have before it as witnesses provincial representatives to give the provincial viewpoint, industrial representatives to give their views and the Minister

January 29, 1982
Canagrex Act
of Agriculture should be prepared to accept proposals for amendments, setting aside politics, so that this bill can be effective.
This is not what generally happens in committee or in the House. No matter how valid a suggestion for an amendment may be, when presented by a member of the opposition it is ruled out because the person submitting the amendment or making the suggestion might gain some political points.
I think that the minister was elated when an amendment I proposed before Christmas to include lamb in the meat import bill was ruled out of order on the basis that lamb was not meat.


William Herbert Jarvis: It is fish.


Douglas Charles Neil: It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that this time around the minister is big enough-and I do not mean physically-to accept recommendations not only from provincial or private industry representatives, but from opposition and individual Members of Parliament, regardless of their political affiliation. It is my hope that if an individual Member of Parliament proposes an amendment which will effectively improve the bill, the minister will be man enough to accept that amendment. As far as I am concerned, the problems faced by the agricultural industry today are far beyond party politics. Unless there is co-operation between parties, unless there is co-operation between governments, we will not solve the problems which are facing us today. I know that all the producers in western Canada, as well as I, do not want to end up in a situation in which the government owns all the land and the producers are tenant farmers.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this bill to establish an agricultural exporting agency, Bill C-85.
At the outset, I want to say that the establishment of an agency such as this is a measure which our party supports and has urged for a long time. Canada should have a corporation that is involved solely with the promotion and export of agricultural products around the world.
My only concern is that too often an excellent proposal for a program in this country is spoiled by the people or the agency running it. It is important that we analyse the bill before us very carefully to ensure that the agency which is created is not destroyed by some bureaucrats who have no idea how to operate the agricultural economy of this country. I suggest that we try to democratize the people that run the agency as much as possible from the beginning, to make it a truly federal exporting agency. It should not be run solely by the federal government and its bureaucrats in Agriculture Canada.
For example, Clause 3 provides for a board of directors made up of a chairman, vice-chairman, president and eight other members. I suggest we should look into the possibility of amending Clause 3 which states that the federal government alone shall appoint the eight directors who will run the agency, to include a written guarantee that some of those directors shall come from the agricultural community, the farmers
themselves. The Board should include some members from private industry, and some from the federal government, of course, because that is important. Incidentally, I would point out to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) that not only private industry but many agencies are involved in agriculture, such as Intercontinental Packers Limited in Saskatchewan which are publicly owned. They should also play a role in the direction of the board.
There should also be representatives of the provinces on the board. Under our Constitution the federal and provincial governments have concurrent jurisdiction over agriculture. It has been that way since 1867, and when we set up an agency to export our agricultural products, we must reflect that reality in the agency. Because if we do not, we may have some conflict with the many dozens of provincial marketing boards which exist in each and every single province of this great country of ours.
My first suggestion is that the directors come from four different groups. There should be federal government appointees, provincial government appointees and representatives of producers and the industry, so that we have an agency that is truly federative, truly national and truly reflective of the reality of our country and of agriculture in the country.
I think it is appropriate that the agency have the powers it is being given. The hon. member for Moose Jaw was concerned about the extensive powers of the export agency. He referred to the powers of the agency respecting entering into joint ventures, signing contracts, storing products and so forth. Those powers are very extensive but I think the agency needs them. We are dealing in a highly competitive world today. Other export agencies and state agencies in other countries make sure that their exporters have the power and flexibility they need to make decisions so that they do not have to come back to their parliaments time and time again because circumstances change and are different for various agricultural products. However, in the exercise of the powers of this agency it is important that the directors operating the agency know what powers to use and how to use them, and that they use them in the interests of the farmers and the agricultural business of this country. Those powers should not be exercised solely by a few bureaucrats centrally located in Ottawa who are not sensitive to the agricultural community.
In terms of financing, I think $12.3 million for three years is probably less than the agency should have, but at least it is a start on something which is a very good idea.
In terms of the production of agricultural products, we in this country have a long way to go. We must examine the basic facts. About 40 per cent to 45 per cent of our agricultural goods are produced for export. Most of our exports are grain and oil seeds from western Canada. In 1980 we exported some $8 billion worth of food and agricultural products from Canada and imported some $5 billion worth of agricultural products and food. One of the tragedies associated with imports into this country is that many of the products we
January 29, 1982

import are products we could be producing right here. We could be providing jobs for farmers, income for Canadians, support for the Canadian dollar and jobs for workers in processing the foods we could be growing right here in this country.
One of the tragedies associated with our agricultural exports is the same tragedy associated with other exports such as oil and energy. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) talked about this. We tend to export unprocessed basic raw materials. I will give one example. We produce pork in huge factory-like processes and export it en masse from Canada. This provides very little real economic benefit and few jobs. We should be processing more food products. We should be processing labour-intensive products. This would help solve the unemployment problem we have.
I do not have current statistics on the production of food in Canada, but much research has been undertaken by Agriculture Canada, by GATT-Fly, by churches and by other organizations. If we do not smarten up, by the end of this century Canada will be a net importer of food. We will not be able to feed ourselves. In a country with a small population but a large geographic area, I think that is a crime in the twentieth century.
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture said the other day that about 26 acres of farm land goes out of production in the province of Ontario every day. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) is very familiar with what has happened in the Niagara region of Ontario, where farm land has been paved over for city suburbs, freeways, hydro lines and parks. Those developments could be undertaken a few miles away from good agricultural land, on land which cannot be used for agricultural purposes.
According to statistics we are no longer self-sufficient in many products in which we were self-sufficient in the past. Many fruits once grown in Ontario are no longer produced here but are imported from the United States and other countries around the world. There have been massive losses in the peach industry, the grape industry, the apricot industry, the pear industry, the plum industry and the vegetable industry. This is happening not only in Ontario but also in the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia and other provinces. We now produce only 18 per cent of the peaches we eat in Canada. At one time we produced the majority of peaches consumed here.
In conjunction with the export agency we are establishing, we should be looking to a national agricultural plan and the kinds of products we could be producing but are not producing in Canada. There are specialty crops we should be producing right across the country. On the prairies we could be producing for export much larger volumes of peas and faba beans. These could be exported to many countries around the world. In British Columbia we could be producing much larger volumes of fruits and vegetables. In Ontario and Quebec we could be producing and exporting more maple syrup. A few days ago one of the members of this House from Quebec spoke in the House about the export potential for maple syrup that
Canagrex Act
there is in many countries around the world. The northeastern part of the United States is probably getting some of the markets we could have. This is a job for the new export agency we are setting up. It should try to promote some of these specialty crops. We should look at the possibility of producing more mushrooms and aflatoxin-free peanuts in this country. There are cole crops in the maritimes. Some other crops are potatoes and seed potatoes. We produce specialty cattle, purebred cattle and chickens. There are all kinds of animals and livestock we could be producing and exporting to other countries around the world. I think it is important that the board of directors and the people who run the export agency are aware that they have to get out there and be aggressive and devise- along with the Parliament of Canada and the provinces-a national agricultural plan so that we can do just that.
I want to sound one note of caution. I hope the new export agency we are setting up will not try to do what our friend Jack Horner did a few years ago, and that is to export infant feeding formulas to the Third World or South America. I do not think that is the job of an export agency of this kind. It is not the job of an export agency to try to set up huge bakeries in places like Tanzania, which we have done in the past, so that they will import Canadian wheat and put local people out of work. The job of an export agency is to make sure that when we export something to other countries, especially the developing countries of the Third World, we help those countries to help themselves become self-sufficient. We should give them some of the technology they need. We should not destroy their local markets. We should not be importing products from their best farm land which are not necessary for consumption in this country. Time and time again we have imported from countries in Africa and South America crops like peanuts, tobacco and cotton produced on the best farm land in the Third World, while the people living right next door are going hungry and dying of starvation and malnutrition. We must make sure our export agency is sensitive to some of the problems of the developing world and that we do not repeat some of the historical mistakes of this government and other governments.
I see that it is one o'clock. Perhaps I could resume at two o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2.00 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few more minutes to deal with this bill. Some hon. members have expressed concern about farm size and about farm land disappearing in this country. I have in front of me a copy of the GATT-Fly magazine issued a few years ago. That organiza-
14474

January 29, 1982
Canagrex Act
tion did a fair amount of research into the problem of diminishing farm land, the fact that farms are becoming larger and larger and that as a consequence there are fewer of them.
In 1951 the average farm size in this country was 113 hectares and in 1971 it was 188 hectares, which is an increase of 66 per cent.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: How big is a hectare?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A hectare, for the information of the Conservative member, is about 2.5 acres. I do not have the statistics for 1982 but we have a similar projection which shows that the size of the farms have jumped by a corresponding 40 per cent, 50 per cent or 60 per cent.
As we make advances in technology and agriculture, I suppose it is normal that the size of farms will increase. As a farm boy from the prairies, however, I know that many farms are far too large at the present time. In many cases this is because people have more money and so they are buying more land, as are large corporations. But beyond a certain size a farm is not economical and can destroy the fabric of the rural way of life, of the villages and towns.
My other concern is that so much land is being taken out of agricultural production and being paved over for industry, for roads or for hydro lines. Statistics given by the GATT-Fly magazine show that in 1951 Canada had some 70.4 million hectares of farm land and in 1971 the figure had dropped to
67.2	million hectares. By 1976 it had dropped by about another million hectares.
We also see the greater concentration of farm holdings in fewer hands. In 1951 there were 623,000 farms in this country. In 1971 there were only 366,000 farms. I am sure the same trend will show up in the 1981 census which has just been completed.
As a member from rural Canada, I want to make it clear that I am very concerned about the increasing size of farms. The owners of large farms are buying up the small ones and thus becoming larger and larger themselves. The small towns, the rural communities and villages are shrinking. As the farming population shrinks, the need for the small towns is less. In Colorado there are a few farms of township size run by large agricultural corporations. 1 do not want to see that in Canada-agriculture becoming as General Motors is to automobiles. That can be prevented with a rational and sane national agricultural program.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the export development corporation that will be established by this legislation can be part of that program. The corporation can sell our farm products to other countries. It can sell farm products that are more labour-intensive than capital-intensive. It can sell more and more of the specialty crops that can be grown in this country. I think we can do it and compete with the best of countries in the world. On the domestic front, we must become more and more self-reliant so that we can feed ourselves and produce in Ontario, British Columbia and other parts of Canada much of the food we consume. We must move in that
direction. We can only do it by planning and involving the farmers and producers themselves.
My last recommendation is that the export corporation must be controlled by those individuals involved in the agricultural industry itself. Farmers, producers and workers in the agricultural industry must have input as to who will sit on the board of directors. Because of the fact that agriculture is a shared jurisdiction under the Constitution, federal and provincial, and because of the fact that there are literally dozens of provincial marketing boards selling products every day in the world, the provinces as well as the federal government must be represented on the board of directors.
I should like to refer to a relevant example in my province. It is not a food, it is an agricultural product. The province of Saskatchewan provides 35 per cent of the world's potash which is used as a fertilizer and sold to many countries. It is important to have provincial governments involved because of realities such as this, so that there is a co-ordination of food sales, agricultural product sales and such things as potash sales in various countries around the world. I think it is a good idea. I think its time has come. But let us not destroy the idea by an insensitivity to the reality of food and agriculture in Canada.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is significant, and I hope farmers across Canada and especially those in my riding will appreciate this, that the first two bills the government is tabling in 1982 in the House of Commons are concerned with agriculture. In recent years we have often had the impression that agriculture is being overlooked. Now that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has tabled a bill whose purpose is to establish an agency for promoting export markets for Canadian producers, I should like to point out that this government, and other Liberal governments that preceded it during the past 15 years, have had a special concern for agriculture as one of our vital sectors. I may add that the fact that the first two bills on which we shall be voting at the beginning of this year in the House concern those Canadians who feed us and are feeding an increasingly large part of the world, demonstrates that a country that is capable of feeding itself and feeding other people besides is also capable of developing its resources and giving its people a healthy environment in which to live.
In the past, when the government set up marketing boards, it was attacked by groups in our society who claimed prices and markets were being supported artificially, and that if the market were free, prices would come down. Before discussing the bill on the agenda today, I want to point out that such claims are entirely false. Prices of farm products have not increased as fast as prices for other commodities. Just compare what you were paying for a quart of milk a few years ago and what you are paying today for a package of cigarettes or a car, neither of which are produced under a quota system, and you
January 29, 1982

will see that the prices of the latter have increased far more. Mr. Speaker, I also wish to congratulate our farmers and prove the extent to which they have been leaders in our society, leaders whose example, unfortunately, we have not always followed. The problem today is essentially one of productivity. Today's high interest rates and inflation are due to the fact that we are still producing at the same rate with the same number of workers, the same machines and the same plants as we were ten years ago, but our production costs are constantly increasing. In the agricultural sector this has not been the case. Western farmers are now producing twice as much as they were ten years ago on the same amount of land. Quebec farmers are getting twice as much milk from the same cow as they did ten years ago. The way these people have been fighting inflation is absolutely marvellous. They have shown what the whole country could be like if we had modernized operations at all levels and had increased our production per capita.
A few minutes ago, I heard the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) say that there were fewer and fewer farmers and that less land was being farmed. With an increasingly small number of farmers and less and less land, Mr. Speaker, we are producing much more than we used to. That is what is called an increase in productivity, that is what is called fighting against inflation, that is what is called fighting against high interest rates. That is how our society must develop. How have we achieved this? 1 have no hesitation in saying that it is quite simply thanks to the Government of Canada. I know that when something goes wrong, Quebecers often lay the blame on the federal government. I cannot say that we owe everything to the federal government; however, I know that the fat Quebec Minister of Agriculture would never say that it is a little because of the federal government. For my part, I shall show you that everything which happens is partly due to the federal government.
Around 1965, under the leadership of the right hon. Lester B. Pearson, if I may quote as an example, the farmers in eastern Quebec and my constituency whom I know quite well, these farmers had tremendous problems because of a lack of financial options for capitalization, of old and outmoded facilities, of production problems, and of people who were not professionals and who belonged to an era when the farmer lived off the land and fed the people around him and then went looking for part-time work to purchase what he could not produce on the farm. Thanks to the farmers who pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, and thanks also to the assistance provided by the Government of Canada to establish well-developed and well-designed structures, we were able to transform these people into real professionals. How did we achieve this? First of all, by guaranteeing their revenue, by setting production quotas and by establishing marketing boards so that these people could go to the banks and tell them; "We want to borrow; we must replace our equipment;
Canagrex Act
we must update our facilities to be more productive in the future."
Programs were set up. Our farmers obtained loans and invested their shirt in their business. They worked very hard seven days a week. What is the result today? If you go all over a province such as Quebec, you will see new facilities, dynamic producers, hard-working people who have the potential to develop and, most important, who are professionals. Now the farmers are able to do their own accounting, they can make projections for the future and they can do their own financial planning. Mr. Speaker, you know that this is very important because the first duty of the country is to its citizens, and I emphasize this fact because we must understand that whatever party is in power, the main thing in this House has always been that Canada must work for Canadians. In this assembly, in this House of Commons, we have never asked Canadians to give everything for their country because we are all aware of the fact that Canada exists because Canadians wanted it to exist for their own welfare and development.
In this context, I believe that our first duty is to see to it that Canadians can feed themselves. As a Canadian, I am proud today to be able to rise in this assembly and to say that in addition to feeding ourselves, we also feed a large part of the world. We can look at other countries, especially those of the east bloc, with millions of farm workers and an extremely planned economy, which is supposedly communist and is designed to make life easier for the workers, but which are unable to feed their own people. Vast countries like Russia now realize that they are facing an economic disaster because they have stifled initiative.
There is no will to produce more on the same small piece of land, with the same facilities and the same livestock. It is up to us to help them to survive, and I am aware of it. However, 1 would not want Canada to allow these countries to take the money that they would normally use to feed their people to manufacture arms or to build up enormous armies, as we have seen them do in the past. We have come to the point where marketing boards have been established, and we are now on the point of developing the last structures we need, namely, in the pork and the beef industries, where our producers are now facing tremendous difficulties.
We have a few programs to support them but beyond that I think that Canada has demonstrated that agriculture and stability undoubtedly go hand in hand, and I say to those who hope to save five cents per pound of meat by leading farmers to a dead end of instability, not knowing what price they will get to feed themselves and what products they will sell, that the main thing is to know that we can look after the needs of our children and this will happen when production is stabilized and well established. We therefore still have to establish a few marketing boards and we are working at it.

January 29, 1982
Canagrex Act
We have now reached a stage of agricultural development which requires us to look forward. Canada has shown that as a basic structure, as a country which I consider the finest in the world, it is in a position to help the Third World and to feed more than 26 million people, and I believe it. For that purpose, Canagrex, as a new government organization, will help to ascertain the needs of other countries and the products that we can provide and that can be consumed by people living in other climates. In those circumstances, the market is extensive.
It is useless to mention the millions of Canadians who holiday abroad each year. The Caribbean countries mentioned yesterday attract 400,000 visitors, to say nothing of Mexico, Florida and Europe. Tourists are often unable to find in those countries the food they usually eat. This can become a problem. Those countries are surely interested in welcoming wholeheartedly Canadians who spend billions of dollars abroad. That area represents fantastic potential markets for our agricultural products. It is up to us to seize that opportunity. I am pleased to see today that the minister has introduced a bill establishing the organization responsible for gaining access to those markets. Moreover, there are many countries, as I said earlier, which are not self-sufficient in agriculture. Of course, I am aware that we will always have to import bananas or coffee. We will never be in a position to grow all the foodstuffs we need, but we can export a great number of products.
With regard to meat or even to a typical product of my region, blueberries, is a unique product with a fantastic flavour that is now being massively exported to the United States but is still unknown to several countries because our markets have not been extended. Tons of that product remain each year in the fields and woods in my region. They are not picked due to the lack of markets. This is a prospect which could be developed and new markets could be sought. However, the main thing is that with the structures we have set up, our agri-food co-operatives can develop, and our companies with a huge output but not operating at full capacity can find the markets required to dispose of their products.
You know, a turnover of some $42 billion is forecast for the agri-food industry by 1985. That is quite an amount of money. 1 am convinced that the establishment of Canagrex will generate much more than these $42 billion if we combine our efforts and join forces as a nation to develop new markets for the sale of constantly renewable products for daily consumption, especially if we can export the very good name which Canada has earned for itself among our local merchants as a producer of good quality foodstuffs. When you see the Canadian seal of approval of the Canadian government on meat or other foodstuffs, it means that quality is there. We could export this quality. I need not tell you that new markets will continue to open in different parts of the world, for mankind will always need to be fed. That is a basic need. It is clear that the Canadian government cannot afford to develop all these
new markets entirely by itself. It will require, for instance, the co-operation of the provinces.
I am not worried, because we already can rely on the co-operation of farmers. I want to congratulate them once more, because they have become excellent businessmen, and extremely productive ones at that, in just a few years. They have constantly asked the government to give them a break, so that they could fulfill their duties as farmers and feed the Canadian people. No, I am not worried about them. On the other hand, I am concerned about the provincial governments, and when I refer to provincial governments, 1 mean the Quebec government. Here is an example which is very close to me. In my capacity as a representative of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, I was one of the officials who had to negotiate the deal on agricultural expansion and especially land drainage. You probably know that good farm lands are few in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area where I come from.
People often say that our area is some sort of an island deep in the heart of Quebec with a highway linking it to Quebec City. Keeping that in mind we strive to be as self-sufficient as possible in the agricultural fields where we produce. Unfortunately, when that agreement was signed, millions of dollars were earmarked for the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area to help our farmers drain their land. What has happened in the past two years? I found out about it and this is official. First of all the Quebec government began by telling the farmers that it would no longer pay for the engineering costs to prepare the drainage plans they wanted for their land. On the one hand the government of Quebec was offering them money of which 60 per cent came from the federal government to help them, but on the other it was telling them that it would no longer foot the bill for the preliminary projects it used to pay for, that is the blueprints. Try draining without a plan which shows which way your land will slope, how much and so on! The second beef I have is the fact that last year the Quebec agriculture department decided that the funds allotted for farm drainage in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area would quite simply be transferred to Montreal's plain region.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to leave you with the impression that 1 have something against the plain of Montreal for it happens to be our main source of agricultural products in the province of Quebec. But still that is a far cry from trying to empty regions such as ours where the people work extremely hard in a climate which can be unforgiving; as you know, the growing season in Lac-Saint-Jean is more than a month shorter than in the Montreal area. Why go out of their way not to help a region such as mine? Why take the funds which were supposed to be there? I know that many of my friends in agriculture applied for drainage assistance but they were turned down because of the lack of funds. I fully realized that the funds had been shifted over to the Montreal area. It may be that there are more voters in the Montreal area, I do not
January 29, 1982

know, but at times 1 wonder if the party which claims to be pro-Quebec and which calls itself Parti Quebecois would not rather take us for a ride instead of lending us a hand. I would describe that as a sort of living room nationalism. Now and again I derive some pleasure when I describe them as pseudonationalists. All in all, that is a polite way of saying that they are not fascists, but semi-fascists of the extreme right whose sole intent is to sell a flag, to sell a so-called country about which they do not know anything and have no idea whatsoever how it is to be made up.
When you represent a riding and you fight to try to obtain some benefits for those people and then find yourself confronted by a government elected by the same people, a government which instead of working hand in hand with you makes every effort to win votes in a referendum-or a "Renerendum", call it whatever you like-I wonder what the future has in store for our farmers in Quebec, what can our co-operatives expect and what will happen to our agricultural food industry. If it were only up to us here and our policies I would say we have a very bright future. That government holds a majority in the National Assembly and at times it does everything it can to channel away from the Lac-Saint-Jean farmers the funds which end up in other regions; as a result those same farmers might have to pick up the tab, not to mention the fact that they feed the people and that thousands of related jobs are created in the agricultural food industry. I believe that over the years the Government of Canada, the Liberal Party of which 1 am proud to be a member-the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) seems to be smiling. I regard his smile as a sign of approval because in this country, when agriculture is being discussed, even the opposition has good reasons to smile, since agriculture is the industry which has progressed the most in Canada in the last 20 years, under a Liberal government.
Coming back to what 1 was saying, Mr. Speaker, over the last 20 years, the Government of Canada has done well in the field of agriculture and it will continue to do so, not to sell Canada to Quebec farmers but to help a vital sector of our society, namely, our agricultural producers, develop, and increase their output so that they may become the breadbasket of that long-suffering and ill-treated part of the world, the Third World. May I add, Mr. Speaker, that on the other hand, in the last five years, we have seen people in Quebec, going about the province, professing to be nationalists, claiming to be ministers and to be working for their fellow-citizens, who never for one moment understood that they were elected members expressly to represent the people. In Quebec we now have to contend with a group of demagogues who resort to all possible means in an effort to convince people that the federal government is a monster, that Canada is in dire straits and that their future lies in withdrawing within themselves.
Canagrex Act
How is it then that in 1982, 74 of us sitting here to represent six million Quebecers, should decide that the time has come to set up a corporation known as Canagrex, open up our markets the world over, broaden our horizons worldwide, while in Quebec, big Garon goes around saying that they will close down the boundaries, stop importing food products, and communicating with the Canadian government, and break off relations with outsiders? Who is being truthful, Mr. Speaker?


Walter David Baker: That is the big problem!


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: I can well imagine Mr. Garon and his tremendous potential at work in 1882, at a time when there were no planes, no telecommunications, no telephones, nothing. Then he could reasonably have claimed the right to be the cock of the walk, because he could not go far in less than two weeks even if it meant only going to his neighbour's place. But fancy that heap of lard coming today in 1982 to advocate the isolation of Quebec! What would he have Quebecers believe?
1 shall never forget what my father told me: Son, beware of him who shows you a gold coin, he is after your dollars. While you are looking at his gold coin, he will rob you of something. Beware. That is exactly what is going on in Quebec at this time. Those people who are promising Quebecers the moon, whether it be in the field of agriculture or any other are also unable to provide for their daily needs. The moon I do not promise, I know I could never get it. I do not pretend to be any brighter than the people who came before me. But the basic commodities that my constituents need from day to day, that I promise on my life, on my conscience to get for them because I know I sit in an assembly where, regardless of party affiliation, people have been worthy enough not to blame the decisions of our forefathers, but to build on what has been left by our predecessors. This is what we are trying to do here.
I am pleased today, Mr. Speaker, as the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, to publicly condemn the Parti Quebecois, its premier and ministers. Our farmers tell us they are faced with a major interest rate problem, they are faced in Quebec with an internal war among pork producers. We are prepared to introduce a share-cost program for pork but meat packers oppose it and some producers as well. While Quebecers are faced with that kind of problem, what is the Parti Quebecois doing, Mr. Speaker? All they could find is a "Renerendum" to find out whether they are separatists or not.
How long can they go on laughing at Quebecers? Those people were elected by more than two million Quebecers but their major concern is not the welfare of their pork producers, it is whether they will be separatists or not, whether we are going to associate or not. Let us wait and see. Time will tell this is nothing but outrageous politicking. What I find most displeasing is that they stuff the minds of our Quebec people and some of our young people with taboos. Stay clear of people who are not like us! Do not speak to anglophones, it is dangerous! Do not go outside the province for work, it is

January 29, 1982
Canagrex Act
dangerous! Let us make us a small country just for ourselves! We, Premier Levesque and his ministers, are going to send ambassadors to talk to people in Ottawa-not Members of Parliament that are elected by the people and are accountable. Careful there, they will trick you! That famous taboo! I discovered something astonishing, Mr. Speaker. It would seem that taboos are an invention of the elite to ensure their control over people. This is what saddens me most, because in my view-I know 1 went somewhat beyond agriculture and 1 apologize to my colleagues, but in Quebec, as soon as we deal with agriculture or any other issue, when we are honest with our constituents we know that being Canadians means a lot, but when people suggest the opposite, it is our duty to prove to our constituents that those people are wrong.
As I said, what is most astounding is to see that elite now trying, under the cover of a fleur de lys, under a flag, under the term Quebecois which by the way they have stolen because some years ago that word described every Quebecer. Now, in their view I am a bad Quebecer. It has even been suggested I am a traitor, because I spend nearly 90 hours a week working for the people who elected me. In my view, to be a nationalist means more than to boast of speaking French, of being a Quebecer. To be a nationalist is a frame of mind. Being a nationalist is living and working every day for the people one represents. To be nationalist is to do your duty. We have seen enough big mouths in Quebec! Stage people, historians, intellectuals, all those members of an intellectual elite, unable to bring the least thing to the population, who can only criticize others, who can only claim to be nationalists, but who are in fact more fascist than nationalist. We have had enough of them in Quebec! We do not need any more of them! In 1982, Mr. Speaker, the moment of truth has come. In Quebec, we now have to build for the future. Let me look at what is going on at this time. The James Bay project is nearly completed, Mr. Speaker. What has the PQ government done in five years? The James Bay project? It is nearly completed and there is nothing else for hydroelectricity. People have been talking about the Ashuapmuchuan for eight years in my region. Studies are still going on to determine if the landlocked salmon will still run the river if they build a dam. They have been studying the salmon behaviour for four years. If you look at other fields of endeavour, you will find that there are still two projects under way in my area: the federal taxation data centre in Jonquiere and the Canada Games gymnasium in Chicoutimi. Nothing else is under way.
And when we go back to basics, this is what it means to be a nationalist. It means coming here to represent the 60,000 people who have elected you, to give them the best, to help them develop not in a closed environment, but at the same rate as all other Canadians. Because you speak French, you have to be a Quebecer and you will no longer speak to anyone else; I will tell you what to do. We have to be open to the world, to develop, to speak as many languages as possible, to be the best
we can, the most developed in every respect, to have a future in every area. That is my duty. From now on, I have decided no longer to tolerate those who will prevent me from doing my job; I have decided to condemn them on behalf of those who have elected me, and if my constituents decide in two years that I have not done my job, they will tell me so in the most democratic way possible, in the way which is the most generally accepted by all.
Personally, I have done my duty. I did not come here to do the pseudonationalists a favour by saying: Yes, I am a Quebecer and I love Mr. Levesque and I love the flag. No, I came here as a real Quebecer. I did not come here to say that I am a Quebecer and I speak French. I came here to get results for my constituents. I came here to help them get ahead, to think for themselves and to show leadership in our country and in the world. I came here to help them increase their output and solve any problems they might have involving production, employment and their health situation-you know, in Quebec we have reached the point where health care just isn't there. Mr. Speaker, during the winter the roads are hardly plowed anymore! Talk about problems! I feel that as a Member of Parliament my work is not much different from anybody else's. When a carpenter goes to work he takes a hammer and nails and the skills he has learned and starts building. I want to do much the same thing. I talk to my constituents. I come here to represent them, to build and work with them, and 1 tell them they should be Canadians, period. I am not trying to shove the Maple Leaf down their throats. I realize they live in a political context called Canada and in another political context called North America. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tolerate-and this also applies to the agricultural sector we are discussing today-seeing people who get themselves elected and, instead of listening to their constituents, grab a microphone and tell them that they have to be Quebecers, they have to be separatists, they have to be in favour of sovereignty or secession, and they have to watch out for the federal government. The latest news is that Quebec is considering a bill-and I am not afraid to say it-to prevent any initiatives by the federal government in the regions. I suppose that the Quebec government-we could compare the matter of the farm drainage agreement-is considering the possibility of letting the federal government invest only in Montreal and Quebec City to keep the people happy and get their votes, and let the people in the "sticks", as Mr. Bernard Landry would say, fend for themselves. This had better not happen, because they will realize that even if they want to separate, federal Members of Parliament are still there. Sooner or later they will have to realize that we are still there and that we mean to serve our constituents.
If I feel, even though it is not in an area of federal jurisdiction, that the Quebec government is preventing me from doing my job or preventing the Government of Canada
January 29, 1982

from spending money in my own riding, like the $800,000 earmarked for Mont Valin or the $40 million earmarked to develop Saguenay Park, something it cannot do because the Quebec government refuses to transfer the land unlike what happened in Shawinigan, I am going to fight to the limit, because I was sent here in the first place to obtain money from the federal government to invest in my own riding and help it develop, and 1 know that in this respect I can count on the understanding of my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative Party and New Democratic Party, because these people have come to realize, as 1 said, that what happened in the past is not perfect, but that it is at least honourable. Those who cannot respect the past, Mr. Speaker, like those in Quebec, cannot respect the present or the future, and any idea runs counter to despotism, something which is not entirely foreign to the Quebec situation just now. Not many ideas from other sources than the Quebec government can prevail at this time. Everything must come from high above, 1 swear, to be worth anything.
But to come back to agriculture, I am proud to be a Liberal and to be part of a government which is made up of 30 Liberal ministers under the leadership of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, forthe Liberal Party has provided Canadian farmers over the years with the tools they needed to really develop. I continue to be proud of that, even when the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom) says that it is not true. I have been trying to make him understand that everything was not fine and dandy 20 years ago in his own province, and that the Liberal Party has been in power for the past 20 years, except for eight or nine months. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) may correct me if I am wrong.


An hon. Member:: You are wrong!


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: The fact remains that everything is selling well just now in the riding and the province of the hon. member. And all is fine, it is one of the healthy provinces in Canada.
1 am sure that the hon. member, if he did not already belong to the No Decision Party, or the New Democratic Party if you prefer, would have been pleased to cross over to this side. Because it often happens that our western friends from the New Democratic Party look much more like converted Liberals than anything else. Sometimes a few of them take on a communistic look, but very soon everything goes back to normal. 1 hope, in that context, if one day you from the New Democratic Party want to join us, that the Chair will let us know. We will show you how to be good Liberals. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I should address the Chair. At any rate, as 1 said, I am proud to be part of that Liberal Party of Canada.
Often we are asked by young people in our ridings what it means to be a Liberal. Indeed, they are being told that being a PQ is being a Quebecer. A Liberal, what is that? That is something else. They tell us: "How can we be Quebecers and Liberals at the same time? Of course if we are Canadians, we
Canagrex Act
are in the Liberal Party". I said no! This needs not be so. Being a Liberal is first and foremost to be working for the development of the individual person. This is what it means to be a Liberal. We should create a situation in which each and every Canadian can enjoy maximum freedom, whether he be a farmer, a New Democratic Party member, a wavering opposition leader, or a provincial premier. To be a Liberal is to work so that the individual can develop. To be a Liberal does not mean to fight for a province called Quebec, or a country called Canada, to fight for NATO or the Warsaw Pact. To be a Liberal is first and foremost to be an elected representative, a person whose leitmotiv, whose supreme will is to provide opportunities for development and progress for all Canadians. In such a situation, anything can be justified. If the development of individual Canadians is to be achieved through socialization, the Liberal Party can turn socialistic. If the development of individual Canadians is to be achieved through a turn to the right through a strenghtening in the industry, the Liberal Party can move to the right. If in order to promote our development the Liberal Party thinks we have to be communistic, we shall be communistic. This is what it is all about to be a Liberal. To be a Liberal is to be open to all ideas.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) left the Progressive Conservative Party yesterday. Because I know him personally, I can say that he is a great humanist. I have seen him at work in committee, I have discussed with him, and I can even tell you that he is a true member of the Progressive Conservative Party, knowing that he is one of the founders of that party in Alberta, where they are now in power. He has devoted many hours, even in very difficult times and he succeeded in being elected at the very beginning, when there was not a single Conservative in that province. He is a great humanist. What I regret most today, Mr. Speaker, is that, being on this side of the House, I am aware of the situation. However, I feel that on his side there are not enough people who are aware of that. You know, there comes a time, in a politician's life when it is extremely difficult to be left on one's own, when it is so very easy to adopt a party line. But when you are a great humanist, when you think first about the future, about your children, when you think first about the people you represent, you have to promote, for example, the development of farmers. This is one thing. I should have liked the Progressive Conservative Party to understand, for instance, that the development of Canagrex may have depended on the presence of the hon. member for Edmonton East among them. They did not understand and they shouted him down.
The Liberal Party, however, understood that the development of farmers depends on exports, now that we have built a sound agricultural structure in Canada. He has also understood that some people may have different ideas. If we had talked about establishing Canagrex a few years ago, Mr. Speaker, they would have thrown tomatoes at us. It does not

January 29, 1982
Canagrex Act
make sense. Let us develop first our own agriculture, we shall see afterwards whether we should import and export. Let us feed ourselves first! But there were people who believed in it and with whom everyone failed to agree. They were left alone, they were not opposed to, and were told: "Go ahead, do it! Put forward your arguments! That is what it means to be a Liberal!" 1 am proud to be a Liberal, as proud as Canadians were at the last election. I am more and more convinced that they will not change their mind in the next election, especially when people from the New Democratic Party seem to be more concerned about what a country like El Salvador is exporting than about our own exports. I am all too convinced that those who, today, are thrilled with the thought that Liberals are dead and gone in western Canada will soon realize that people will see that being a Liberal is much more than supporting a political party. It is first and foremost to be free to think.
Once again, I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for this measure and want to remind the farmers of my riding of Lac-Saint-Jean that the first two bills to be introduced in 1982 deal with agriculture, that we start the year working for them, for their development, for the development of their markets and that we shall do the same throughout the year. We are a bunch of Members of Parliament who work for the wellbeing of the farming community. We have introduced special programs for them and we have overcome some difficulties on their behalf and shall continue to do so.
As regards the success of Canagrex, 1 have no doubt whatsoever. The only request I want to make to the minister, and to those who are involved in Canagrex as a corporation, is to show plenty of aggressiveness. And on that point, I shall ask for the support of the provinces, as well as that of the opposition parties: Gentlemen, let us not build Canagrex while planning to destroy it tomorrow morning. Let us build it with the intention of helping its development. Let us take a pile of Canagrex business cards along with us whenever we travel abroad and give them to the people we meet. Let us be ambassadors for Canagrex everywhere we go. Let us not waste time looking for difficulties, something the provinces should also avoid doing. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I thank you and hope heartily that Canada, under the leadership of Pierre Trudeau and his cabinet, will continue to be one of the world leaders in the area of agriculture and that tomorrow we shall be feeding those who, today, are going hungry in the rest of the world.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill which affects ridings such as mine, Huron-Bruce. It is a major producer of many commodities currently being exported and many others that could be exported. Any help given to promote Canadian agricultural products will be of benefit to my riding and many
others. The overflow effects of exports of agricultural products is of help to our secondary industries.
I am pleased to participate in this debate at long last because the export of agricultural product has concerned me throughout my career as a farmer, particularly in the past few years as a participant in a provincial marketing board that aggressively sought markets around the world for our products. Since being elected to this House, I also sat on the special committee formed to examine the usefulness of setting up a national trading corporation to promote general trade under the umbrella of a state trading corporation.
With this background I have been eager to examine the bill which was promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as long ago as May, 1979. I am glad that after three years it has finally come to the point of debate.
As one of the members of the Special Committee on a National Trading Corporation who opposed the majority report recommending a general state trading corporation, I want to make clear my position in relation to the bill now before us. When 1 opposed the majority on the special committee that recommended to this House that we proceed with legislation to create a state trading corporation, I made it clear that I did so for particular reasons.
To quote from the press release which I and my colleague from Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) issued after the report of the special committee was tabled last June, that recommendation to form a state trading corporation flies in the face of advice received both from Canada's private sector businesses and from the many government departments and agencies which appeared before the committee. Bear in mind that this House created that special committee to examine on behalf of the whole House the views of Canadians whose business is to concern themselves with our export trade.
We spent a year conducting hearings here in Ottawa and across the country to hear the views of the Canadian private and public sectors. We also travelled to Europe to examine the experience of a range of European countries which have tried a wide variety of methods of promoting and improving their export performance.
What we found in the course of that full year of study was that the great bulk of informed opinion among Canada's manufacturers and exporters, and indeed the majority opinion among our own public sector experts, was that a state trading corporation was not what was needed to improve our export performance over all. Instead, we received a great deal of expert advice which had never been gathered before in Canada and which should serve as a primer to anyone interested in the matter of Canada's export performance. This advice is all to be found in the transcripts of the committee hearings. I hope it will be researched and used by future task forces and groups concerned with Canada's export performance.
We have heard talk of Canagrex for quite a long time. We did not have the opportunity of examining the bill until very recently. In Ontario there are approximately 26 or 28 marketing boards which are producer-run. A general type of meeting
January 29, 1982

was held with some of those boards. They had an opportunity to express some of their views and concerns but have not had a real opportunity to examine the bill, even the opportunity that we have at this time. I hope that at the committee stage some of these marketing agencies will have the opportunity to examine and look at this board and give their final views before we continue with this agency.
A lot of our marketing boards in Ontario have been very successful in their export endeavours. I was involved in a marketing board. It created a fantastic market for a lot of producers in Ontario. In ten years it completely reversed a trend of 80 per cent domestic use of a product and a 20 per cent export, to an 80 per cent export and 20 per cent domestic use without any sacrifice of consumption of that product in Canada. That is only one board. There are other boards just as successful.
1 know these boards have some serious questions about this proposed agency. Is it going to complement what they are doing or compete with what they are doing? Also, will it compete with our food processors which are actively exporting agricultural products? Are we going to be creating a Crown corporation which will be in direct competition with them? We know, because of the wide range of products involved in export marketing, that we cannot have salesmen who will be experts in all areas. We know that it takes a great amount of market research, and it is my hope that if Canagrex is established it will make use of research and involvement that many of our marketing boards have used up to this time in marketing research that has already been done. If this board is established, I hope the expertise of those people involved in marketing organizations will be utilized and that they will have a place on the board of Canagrex.
It is obvious that there should be people involved who initially have something to sell, people who have the authority to finalize deals and complete the entire package. The agency should have qualified people in all areas, from financing to shipping. As a corporation, Canagrex should be expected to guarantee the high quality of agricultural products for which Canada is held in high regard throughout the world. We want to maintain that.
If this corporation is established, it should start small and not be in competition with services now available either through the federal government or provincial governments. We do not want it to be in competition with a producer or organization directly involved in the export of agricultural products at this time.
Before I continue with the text of my speech, I should like to quote for the record a letter which was sent to me by a constituent. It says:
Re: Further comments requested in your fellow farmers beef questionnaire
The main problems in the farming business today, are inflation and high interest rates.
Canagrex Act
Government dabbling in the "Rob Peter to pay Paul" business, e.g. government loans and grants to Massey-Ferguson and the Chrysler Corporation, etc., etc., and the conferring of special privileges to special groups e.g. the right to strike by public employees, supply management and price-fixing powers to certain farm groups, etc. etc., in the short run look attractive, but in the long pull are disastrous.
You are currently seeking approximately $60 million from Canadian taxpayers to Finance Canagrex, a government export agency whose announced purpose would be to expand agricultural export sales, and so provide jobs for Canadians and earn much-needed balance of payment dollars.
I would strongly support an export sales thrust, but at the same time you are advocating supply management with its accompanying tariffs and trade barriers.
I have a question for you. How many export dollar sales have been earned by products produced under supply-management programs when the same price was charged for export as was paid by our Canadian consumers?
May I suggest that you and your government cohorts concentrate your efforts on balancing the national budget and provide the most humane services possible within that content and leave beef farmers and Canadian citizens generally to get on with the same job in their chosen enterprises?
Enclosed find articles I have clipped from the public press that you may find of interest.
Thanking you for requesting my comments.
The letter is signed by Ross S. Proctor.
The work of the Special Committee on the National Trading Corporation, of which I was a member, had to do with exporting from the enormous Canadian lumber industry to the communications industry and the tool manufacturing industry, from the newsprint industry to the shipbuilding industry and the engineering sector, which exports no hard goods but which exports Canadian expertise in dam building, irrigation projects, oil drilling and so on. The point which we made in opposing the creation of a state trading corporation was that after seeking a very wide range of expert advice, the committee as a creature of this House had an obligation to reflect the advice which it had received when it reported to the House. I maintained then, and still maintain, that the majority on that special committee failed to discharge its primary duty to the House by submitting recommendations to the House in the final report, which did not reflect the advice we had received.
We face an entirely different situation with the bill which is now before us. The creation of an agricultural export corporation has been talked about in Canada for many years now. The present government has campaigned on the promise of creating such a corporation twice in the past five years. In view of the fact that the government has had the introduction of this legislation in mind for so long, it is fair to wonder why it has dragged its feet for so long before introducing the legislation. It is almost two full years since the present government was elected and since the promise to bring in this legislation was formally made in the Speech from the Throne which began this session. The agriculture minister's advisers told the press in May of 1980 that it was only a matter of a few months before the legislation would be presented. One of them was quoted in the agricultural press as saying that the creation of the Canadian agricultural export corporation was "about as high as something can get" on the minister's list of priorities.
Well, farmers now understand sadly and clearly just how fast they can expect results when something becomes a matter of priority with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). It

January 29, 1982
Canagrex Act
took him a year and a half, plus the ammunition of a 70 per cent increase in farm bankruptcies, merely to convince the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to include farmers in the provision of the Small Business Development Bond. Even then he failed. Instead, farmers were allowed limited and restricted access to a small business survival bond, which they could only use when they had become so financially shaky that the banks would no longer want to lend to them. So much for the usefulness of having any matter high up on the list of the minister's priorities.
In fact, I recall when the Minister of Agriculture appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture in the fall of 1980 and told us Canagrex could increase agricultural exports by as much as $3 billion during its first year of operation. One of his officials from the marketing and economics branch of Agriculture Canada announced at that time that there would definitely be money for Canagrex in the 1981-82 budget. By this logic, plus the added assurance that Canagrex would begin very quickly with an aggressive sales campaign, we should by now have been able to look back on a full year of Canagrex operations and, if the minister is to be believed, should be able to take satisfaction in the fact that Canadian food producers have $3 billion more cash in hand to meet the crisis they are facing in farm financing than they in fact have.
However, we cannot look back on a year of Canagrex. Canada's food producers have had to look back on the worst financial squeeze most of them have faced in their whole farming careers or that Canadian agriculture has faced since the Depression of the 1930s. Instead, those producers who have been watching a lifetime's equity melting away month by month during this past year and have watched the outrageous growth of interest rates, have not had the benefit of a single penny of the $3 billion which the Minister of Agriculture said Canagrex could add to the agricultural export drive in its first year alone. Therefore I, along with many other food producers in Canada, am left wondering whether the Minister of Agriculture or his cabinet overlords have the slightest idea what they are talking about when they talk about the value of an agricultural export trading corporation.
I am not for a moment suggesting that Canagrex is a bad idea. I am simply suggesting that if the Minister of Agriculture believes what he says about the value of creating such a corporation, then he should hang his head in shame for taking so long to bring forward legislation which, by his account, could have had such an enormously beneficial effect during the past year in which it could have been operating.
In short, I would like to see the minister talk clear sense and take his responsibilities to Canada's agricultural industry seriously. The last thing that we need in the beleaguered food industry is more rhetoric and empty promises. We need a clear policy, serious planning and prompt implementation of programs. What we have had in the case of Canagrex for almost two years now is apparently a bureaucratic fumble, centred in the cabinet, as a directionless government has concentrated its attention on reshuffling the bureaucratic deck instead of
acting to meet the needs of the agricultural economy in this country.
Having said this, let me say that now that we do have the legislation brought forward for examination and debate, I for one am anxious to see it passed to the Standing Committee on Agriculture so it can be examined in detail and commented on by those who will be affected by the creation of such a corporation and whose livelihood is dependent on their being experts in the field not only of food production but of marketing.
There cannot be any significant objection in Canada, and certainly not among food producers, to the goal of increasing our agricultural exports. This is a thoroughly laudable goal in itself. Certainly, however, there are powerful reasons why this country's food producers will want to look very closely at any scheme brought forward by the present government, even when it is sponsored by the Minister of Agriculture, for whom I think the farming community has had much respect in the past. Recent evidence of the incompetence with which the current government has faced the economic problems of Canada certainly does not inspire confidence in the Canadian agricultural community that any measure brought forward is going to be valuable just because this government says it will be valuable.
We in this party will want to look very closely at this legislation in the committee, and we will want to do so soon. Ever since the present government was elected, the Standing Committee on Agriculture of this House has been spinning its wheels and doing almost nothing to serve the interests of the economic sector whose interests it is charged with protecting.
In almost every Speech from the Throne we have heard, whether it be federal or provincial-and I think we could dig out any throne speech over the last number of years-agriculture has been mentioned, and it has always been said that agriculture is the backbone of this great country. However, that apparently seems to be about all that happens. We only get lip service to agriculture when the crunch comes.
Another reason, of course, is that the Minister of Agriculture has not brought any real grist to the mill. There is a vacuum, a powerlessness, in this government which has cost the farming community in Canada unnecessary billions of dollars in outrageous interest charges as a direct result of government economic and fiscal policy. And there is a vacuum where there ought to be a powerful and effective minister of agriculture in the cabinet, where, once upon a time, there was such a minister.
For all these reasons the agricultural sector in Canada will want a full examination of this legislation now before us at the committee stage, even though the need for an improvement in the prospect for Canadian agriculture is immediate.
As a representative of one of Canada's leading pork and beef producing areas, I can tell the House with certainty that there is absolutely no value for our redmeat producers in increasing our markets for pork and beef if we are going to
January 29, 1982

continue to fetch prices below the cost of production. If we increase beef and pork sales by $3 billion a year, under the present price regime Canadian farmers could expect to lose more millions as they subsidize foreign consumers more heavily, the way they now subsidize Canadian consumers. Cana-grex, in other words, is of no help to the agricultural sector in Canada if it merely increases our food exports without increasing the returns to farmers.
So, as we look at this legislation in committee, we will need to be convinced that Canagrex, as it has been envisioned by this government and the bureaucrats who drafted the legislation, will in fact serve the interests of Canada's food producers and not merely fit into some macroeconomic strategy as part of Canada's over-all trade picture or as an aspect of Canadian foreign policy.
On the face of it I believe there are grounds for hoping that Canagrex can work to the advantage of Canada's trade performance over-all and to the benefit of the food-producing sector, which should be the primary beneficiary. But, I add, let us be certain that it does before we come to the final debate in the House on the legislation now before us.
To ensure that Canagrex is workable and does work to the benefit of food producers I support the reference of this legislation to committee promptly for rapid and very careful and close study. I hope, when the committee finishes its examination and reports this bill, it will have proved itself harder working and more competent than the government's lack of interest in agriculture has allowed it to be thus far during the course of the present Parliament.
Canada's food producers have been crying out for clarity and competence in the government's management of agriculture, and they have not yet got it from this government.
I hope we can unite in sending this bill to committee with the strong demand that it receive prompt, close and careful scrutiny and comment from a wide range of groups which will be affected by the creation of an agricultural export trading corporation such as the government has now, at last, proposed.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member accept a question?


Murray Cardiff: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the Canadian trading corporation committee and the fact that he dissociated himself from its report. He knows, of course, that the main recommendation had two components. The first was undertaking capital projects, and the second was general trading.
Since the general trading component relates to what Canagrex will want to do in the field of agricultural products, how can the hon. member reconcile the fact that he seems to favour in principle the institution of Canagrex to promote exports but, on the other hand, he does not accept that the Canadian trading corporation should support the export of manufactured products?
Canagrex Act


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might recall that indeed I did support in general the proposal he speaks about, but I felt 1 received a message in the hearings which were held from the 450 witnesses who appeared before our committee. The clear and direct feeling relayed to me was that a national trading Crown corporation was not what was wanted by those people. The same feeling might exist in relation to Canagrex. I think it is only proper that commodity groups and people actively involved in exporting have the opportunity to look at this bill and to put their views forward. I think it is my obligation to support what the representatives of the various organizations and the people I represent want.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Have you any views of your own?


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased, at the end of this week, to be able to take part in the debate on the Canagrex bill, especially since this corporation constitutes our challenge to the food industry in the eighties. A few weeks ago, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) tabled a white or beige paper in which he stressed the projected increase in the world population and the enormous markets that would be open to us during the next 20 years. The white paper has three major concerns: development of resources, development of markets and thematic agricultural research. I think the bill now before the House is aimed more specifically at realizing the second objective. It is becoming absolutely essential for Canada to develop export markets, considering the fact that surpluses are a problem for many producers. In my riding, people also have this problem and they have a good understanding of export markets.
According to our statistics and projections, Canada will be able to increase agri-food exports by about 60 per cent during the next twenty years. But how am I to reconcile the words of the previous speaker who said that he is anxious to examine the legislation in committee for the benefit of our farmers, with those of his official critic, the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), who said that the Minister of Agriculture could wait, that they had plenty of time, that there was no rush and that the House could debate the bill for a few days more. Honestly, when you consider that farmers have been asking for this legislation for several years! We made a promise during the election, the corporation was mentioned in the throne speech and even the members of the opposition agree with the concept. That is why I fail to understand their desire to delay the democratic process. However, if they are willing to refer the bill immediately to committee, I should be glad to sit down and give them a chance to vote. To most Canadian farmers, international trade opens a host of possibilities and will enable them to expand their business and to get a return on their often quite considerable capital investment.
Many farmers are now producing at 60 per cent, 50 per cent or even 40 per cent of their capacity because of a lack of

January 29, 1982
Canagrex Act
markets for their products. The corporation we are proposing will be a focal point for the entire agri-food sector in Canada, because not only producers but also processors will be interested in meeting the challenge of Canagrex. In fact, the real challenge for Canada in the eighties will be to be able to market processed farm products, thus providing a living wage for many more Canadians and making a very substantial contribution to our balance of payments. In 1980, Canada succeeded in exporting $7.8 billion worth of agricultural products. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these were primary products, involving a minimum amount of labour, which of course had a negative impact on our employment rate. Once Canagrex becomes the instrument of our agricultural export policy, I am convinced that we could easily exceed the $2.7 billion surplus we had in 1980 and probably will have this year. In Canada we must rely on advanced production techniques. We have a large pool of workers and, even more important, we have enough space to increase farm production.
Sales abroad now account for 40 per cent to 45 per cent of the normal income of farmers, and this percentage could increase substantially if Canagrex fulfills its mandate. Feeding the world is a constant challenge. We only have to look at the Third World countries, at the enormous trading potential with the socialist bloc or at the even greater demand from the Arab countries to realize that Canada can easily get a share of these markets with the help of experienced salespeople. This is why I hope that this new corporation will be staffed with qualified people who will probably be able to operate from within our embassies and sell our farm products instead of merely selling equipment. This would be a welcome change for a constituency like Shefford, where there are poultry, egg, maple syrup, apple, pork, dairy and other producers. Maple syrup is a very good example. We now have a surplus of millions of pounds in Canada and this product is not well known in most parts of the world. We have a very limited market of people who know this extraordinary product, but they are just a minority in the world, and I am convinced that with a good sales program we could first sell our surplus, and then increase our production.
Among the problems now facing agriculture, one of the most important is that of pork production. In Quebec, pork production is virtually at a standstill; a number of producers are just about bankrupt and there is a very big surplus. I am convinced that even though our slaughterhouses and our federations have developed markets in Japan and the United States, there are many other opportunities elsewhere in the world, and if Canagrex could not compete with them, but co-operate, our farmers might earn a decent living. According to the most realistic projections, the world population should reach 6.4 billion within the next ten years. Such an increase means a lot of mouths to feed and the challenge facing Canadian producers is great.
I am even more satisfied when I see who the officials of Canagrex will be. This corporation will not turn out to be the
type of institution which suffers from structuralism and is nothing more than a bunch of thinkers. We intend to have a corporation managed by a board made up of 11 directors who will be directly responsible to the Minister of Agriculture, seven of whom will be appointed from outside the federal public service. And with all due respect to our public service, I am convinced that we can find seven Canadians outside our system who can make Canagrex, as well of course as all Canadian farmers, benefit from their knowledge of agriculture, marketing, and the marketplace itself.
There will also be a policy advisory committee which will be made up of representatives from the provincial governments. A while ago, one of my colleagues spoke about problems with the provincial governments, but I am certain that the provincial governments will consider it their duty to take an active part in an organization such as Canagrex because if the balance of payments of Canada is improved by the work of Canagrex, it will be of great benefit to the provincial governments. The corporation will include representatives from business and farm associations who will be in a position to advise the minister in all areas concerning the market development strategy. Management will be restricted. A president and two vice-presidents will be hired to manage Canagrex under the board of directors. I do not think farmers would have liked it if we had created a top-heavy structure that would have hampered their ability to communicate with and understand those who will try to open up new markets. Another significant aspect of the legislation, one which I hope will be found in other bills in the future, is the provision in clause 31 that the corporation will prepare a three-year plan. This means that every Canadian farmer, everyone in the agri-food industry, processors and even bankers will know in advance where Canagrex is going, what its objectives are for the three following years. And I quote:
(2) The corporate plan referred to in subsection (1) shall set forth
(a)	the purposes and general objectives of Canagrex, not inconsistent with this
act or the bylaws of Canagrex; and
(b)	the projected activities of Canagrex in the three financial years covered by
the plan, including
(i)	the specific agricultural products or food products with which Canagrex will concern itself in the first of those three years.
(ii)	the specific objectives of Canagrex with respect to the products referred to in subparagraph (i), and
(iii)	the means that Canagrex intends to use in those three years in order to achieve the objectives referred to in subparagraph (ii).
I think this is a new approach, a long-term one that is really needed. There has been a number of complaints, other corporations involved in agriculture lacked vision. In some cases, pork producers blame us for having provided them with ample funding that led to future losses. 1 think the provision of such a three-year plan will enable other corporations like the FCC and a number of other boards involved in that area to plan ahead, and this will mean stable revenues for all our farmers. As matters now stand, as soon as there is a surplus, difficulties
January 29, 1982

arise, financial problems. Basically we developed export markets on the strict basis of periodic surpluses. Until now, we never had a consistent long-term policy.
Exactly! Right now, in order to produce surpluses, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) said, if we did not have a corporation like Canagrex, there would still be surpluses every year, one year it would be potatoes, another year maple syrup, milk, powdered milk, or cheese. Truly nobody developed longterm projections.
It is my view that the Minister of Agriculture, first with his document "Challenge for Growth in the Eighties", and second, with the establishment of that corporation, will give a longterm outlook to a whole industry that is highly developed. Despite private initiative in the area of exports, it has always been difficult for various groups, packers or others, to negotiate with foreign countries. I know that it has very often been so with wheat, but in the other less conventional products this has always been difficult. Now that Canagrex will have authority to negotiate with governments and foreign corporations, 1 am sure Quebec producers in particular, who are so often dependent on foreign markets, will profit tremendously.
To return to my own riding, I am sure that the work that Canagrex and the Canadian Dairy Commission will be doing together will help a co-operative such as Agropur, one of the world leaders in the area of industrial milk, which must fight every year to find new export markets either for its cheeses, its powdered milk or its butter. A joint effort by the Canagrex-Canadian Dairy Commission team could mean only greater security in the area of new markets. The same applies to the Canadian Wheat Board. Canagrex has no intention whatever of replacing or competing with the Canadian Wheat Board, but I am sure Canagrex officials could give a tip or two to those of the Canadian Dairy Commission or the Canadian Wheat Board. Now, the new corporation will have to take up the challenge of making agriculture a stable and profitable business so as to convince farmers to make new capital expenditures. We have in Quebec legislation dealing with farm zoning.
Strictly on the basis of zoned land, we find that we have the potential to feed countless people. And most of that land is not even under production. Now we have the possibility of new markets. The Canadian market is much too limited to allow our producers to operate at full capacity. In Canada, at the present time the problem is not one of productivity in agriculture. We have to limit our production, which explains our quota system, because of circumstances beyond our control. Still, it is frustrating for the hard-working farmer to see his potential and production resctricted. He knows he could produce twice as much but, unfortunately, he does not have the markets for his products. The processing industry is in its very infancy in Canada, especially in Quebec. Where do our proc-
Canagrex Act
essing industries manage to process right on home ground? At this time, in our area for instance, people are processing apples; those plants are located in the riding of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. There are people who process apples, make cider and all sorts of products and by-products, and that industry has given jobs to a great many workers.
The agricultural cooperative has over 600 people working in processing plants and I am convinced that a lot of new industries would open up if the markets were there. Canagrex will be able to help those people develop new markets and arrange their own financing, and 1 am sure that... Someone said earlier that the plain of Montreal was given preferential treatment over some other localities and I have no doubt that the future of the plain will be brighter still if Canagrex can fulfil its mandate. Indeed its mandate is very simple: Canagrex is established strictly for the purposes of promoting, facilitating and engaging in the export of agricultural products and services and food products and services from Canada to other countries by means of the financial and other powers provided in the act under which it is established of course. We have been waiting a long time for that corporation. 1 know that during the last electoral campaign we often referred to our determination to set up that corporation. The throne speech did refresh our memory and we are now about to deliver the goods.
I hope that our colleagues opposite will be responsible and generous enough to let the bill go to committee without undue delay. If they have specific questions Committee of the Whole House is not the place to put them. I suggest that a committee would be a much better place because, of course, we are not fully aware of every aspect of the operation and the producers as well as the associations will appear before us to tell us exactly what they think of the bill. As members we do our best, but at the earliest opportunity we should call for people outside who will comment on the bill and help us improve it if it has any deficiency. I know how our colleagues opposite feel, I can understand them, perhaps it hurts a little to realize that we are doing something for which the farming community will be extremely grateful, but it is really essential and we know all about the difficulties. Every day during Oral Question Period they remind us that farmers are going through difficult times. Here is a solution which might relieve somewhat their financial hardship and I hope hon. members will act diligently and efficiently.
The Minister of Agriculture is very optimistic about the potential of this corporation. I share both his optimism and his determination in the hope that the people will get to work immediately and sell our products. Again I say that the driving force behind our export policy and our challenge over the next 20 years will be Canagrex and the long list of supporting organizations which will enable Canada to become a major exporter. There are financial considerations, of course, because

Canagrex Act
farmers must earn a living and the processing industries and their workers must have work, but there are human considerations as well.
The scarcity of food in the world weighs on our conscience especially as we live in a land of plenty. All reports provided to us by organizations such as OXFAM and others constantly make us aware of destitution and hunger in the world and should induce us to pass that legislation as soon as possible. Many new systems and ideas will have to be developed and officials such as those of Canagrex could try to make that foodstuff available to those remote communities. We will need, of course, some valid economic grounds, it is unfortunate but such is life. However I am sure that we can also play a humanitarian role and Canagrex will help us considerably to do so. 1 hope, Mr. Speaker, that in the next few minutes we will be in a position to set up a committee to consider the provisions of the bill and amend them to the satisfaction of the members opposite. I hope that we will be in a position to implement the bill very shortly and that the minister will proceed with the appointment of new directors, so that those people will set out to sell abroad and give some hope to our farmers who are, I would say, tired of having their production restricted as well as their capacity to produce and make their land profitable. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this new corporation will have an enormous impact on our region, our country and even throughout the world, and we should establish it as soon as possible. Some are complaining that it is too late; 1 think it is never too late to act right and if we can do that as soon as possible 1 am convinced that it will be generally beneficial in the future.


Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to enter into debate today. 1 welcome the opportunity to make some comments about the bill before us. Bill C-85 establishes the Canadian Agricultural Export Corporation, Canagrex. Hopefully the corporation will carry out the functions desired by the minister to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural food products. Also it shows that the government is at least willing to recognize that there is an agricultural industry out there.
Please allow me to refer to a certain amount of concern which I have, Mr. Speaker, about the act, the subject relating to it and the powers given to the corporation. Also allow me to mention other concerns which I should like discussed at great length in committee and debated on the floor of the House. When we were looking at other questions regarding Canagrex to which we must have answers, we looked at such things as the role of Canagrex and the export of agricultural goods. We must ask ourselves whether it will be in support of or in competition with other exporters, both large and small. Who has the power to determine the sale and price of goods once a market is found? Is this the sole responsibility of Canagrex, or will it be shared with other departments such as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Department of
External Affairs? How many fingers are actually in the pot when it comes to who has final say in sales to the corporation? The co-operation among Canagrex, other government departments, organizations, the agricultural community and national marketing boards is of utmost importance. This brings us to the thought of developing a multiple government agency which must relate with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of External Affairs or whatever the new massive complex may be. I would hate to see it evolve into a situation where trade-offs are made of manufactured goods coming in and out of the country, where we must deal with other department agencies and be willing to trade some of our produce to another country provided that we are willing to accept its manufactured goods or possibly even its produce which competes with our own. The actual sales being made as a result of negotiations between countries and departments are of major concern as well as the resulting agreements. As to the question of whether or not Canagrex should be a Crown corporation, it should be examined closely both in committee and here in the House.
I am sure that hon. members are aware of my concerns about Crown corporations, since I am the Post Office critic. We are a little shell-shocked on this side and so are the people in this country when it comes to Crown corporations, especially when we look at the Post Office and Petro-Canada. We on this side of the House together with many people in the agricultural field are leery of Crown corporations.
I feel we have a sufficient number of Crown corporations in Canada now. But whether Canagrex should be a Crown corporation or a wing of the Department of Agriculture or some other department of this government should be weighed in order to determine what is most advantageous to our country and to our farm community.
In this past week the word "partners" has been mentioned. The possibility is that Canagrex would enter into a partnership in sales and negotiations. Farmers in Canada do not want to be partners with the government, assisted yes, but not partners. We have too much government intervention in agriculture now. On page 6 of Bill C-85, we read:
(g) purchase, lease or otherwise acquire and hold real and personal property for actual use by Canagrex-
My concerns about this corporation are increased, having read that particular subclause.
1 am concerned about jobs. Who are the people who will serve on the board of directors of this corporation? Who will be its vice-presidents? Who will go out looking for areas in which to sell our produce? Who will make the contracts? 1 hope these positions will not be patronage positions for those who have done well for the Liberal Party. I hope they will not be political appointments. I have sufficient faith in the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to believe that he will ensure that the best possible personnel will be put into this corporation and they will be agriculturally-related individuals.
January 29, 1982

(
I am also concerned about who this corporation will be responsible to. We see that the Auditor General is to have some say in the matter. But will the corporation be responsible to the minister and cabinet or will it be responsible to a committee of the House? Will it have the advantage of sunset laws? That is a concern of mine because of the responsibility. If it is to be the minister and cabinet, we have to look at the timing and the enthusiasm that cabinet has shown toward agriculture.
One can only think of asking oneself why it would take ten months to get this bill onto the floor of the House now when the minister had announced the cabinet had given the green light in February of 1981. We do not know how long the Minister of Agriculture had worked to get the cabinet to that stage, but now all of a sudden we are into a position where everything is rushed. Everyone on that side is very concerned that this bill go through immediately, that we get this bill passed in the House today. Why, Mr. Speaker?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Because we are very busy.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Why, Mr. Speaker, do we do it now? It took ten months to get the bill to the position at which it is now. Why is there such a rush to get this bill passed? The previous speaker, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) mentioned that he hoped the bill could be wrapped up in a matter of minutes today if that were possible. He said that if members had other questions and other concerns, they should take the bill to committee immediately, ask their questions in committee and debate the bill there. I am sure the hon. member has as many questions as those of us on this side have. We would like to take this bill to committee. We hope to take it to committee. But we have many questions and we have many people who want to speak on this bill. We are not all members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You have said nothing yet.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Therefore, we must take our opportunity to present our views to the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Ferguson), while speaking to this bill earlier this week, said that with Canagrex we must learn to walk before we can run. I agree with the parliamentary secretary. We must walk before we run. That is why we should not "run" this bill through the House. We should "walk" this bill through the House to ensure that it is the best possible bill for agriculture that this House can produce.
Certainly we must increase our agriculture exports in Canada. All members on this side of the House are aware of that. I am sure that all members on that side of the House are aware of that too and agree. We have always been informed and had the idea that Canada had a food trade surplus. We have. But the surplus is dependent directly on the world grain market, world grain trade, and Canada's sale of grains around the world. When we take the grain sales out of the figures, we find that we have an ever-worsening food trade deficit in Canada. That is something we must work together to turn
Canagrex Act
around. While doing this we must also ensure that we protect our own agricultural community from imports of goods that we can grow here in Canada. Such as those grown in my area, which include apples, fresh fruits and vegetables, oil seeds and soybeans.
If we are going to look for markets around the world for our produce, we must also ensure that we protect produce in Canada that can be produced and sold also within our boundaries. It must be protected from imports from abroad. We must promote home sales as well as sales abroad. It is important that agriculture is helped at this time in Canada.
It is very important that we here in Ottawa take steps to help agriculture. We have to help find markets. Assistance must be given in the selling of goods to these markets. We must protect the goods that can be grown competitively here within the country. All sectors in agriculture must be helped. Agriculture has tremendous problems today. There is a tremendous cost-price squeeze placed on the producers in this country. Government tends to forget farmers, all levels of government, be they municipal, federal or whatever. It is very easy to say that farmers make up only a small percentage of the voters in this country and that we must really look to the consumers who make up some 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the voters. We must keep prices down to those consumers to ensure their votes. We must keep the cost of living down. We must keep inflation down. But let us not forget that farmers are also consumers, and on the average they consume much more than other sectors of the population. They too are having problems. They have problems with overhead which is continually rising. But the prices farmers receive for their goods are already on what is classified by too many people in the country as the top rung. These expenses which are continually climbing the ladder will eventually push the farmer off the ladder. The farmer faces tremendously increased costs in the transportation of his goods to the marketplace. The farmer faces increased costs in seed to plant his crops. There are increased costs for animal feed, fertilizer for his fields, labour to work his fields, and a tremendous increase in the cost of energy for his buildings and equipment. In addition, we have seen in the last few years a tremendous increase in the cost of equipment used on the farm.
What do the farmers do about it, Mr. Speaker? They go into debt; they have to in order to survive. They borrow money at the first of the year to put their crops in and hope they have a good year so they can pay it off at the end when they hope they can sell that crop. What do they borrow it at? Their interest rates are at 20 per cent or more. This kind of burden can no longer be placed on agriculture.
I am swamped in my constituency office, as I am sure members on both sides are, by farmers coming in with financial problems. Proud people with a 40-year farm history, people who have paid off as many as five mortgages on their farm to get to the position they are now in. People who have raised proud families, many of the children having returned to

January 29, 1982
Canagrex Act
agriculture. One particular case comes to mind, Mr. Speaker, of a farmer whose son recently had his farm foreclosed and has himself been given 60-days notice. There are countless examples of this, Mr. Speaker, but this is not the bill on which to debate that.
They have been turned down by lending institutions, be they banks, government agencies or whatever. They do not know which way to turn. We are now debating some method of offering assistance in selling their goods and products. We must also consider the bankruptcies in agriculture. There is talk that the number of farm bankruptcies is much lower than what people believe; they are not really at a critical level. That is a fallacy, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned earlier that farmers are proud people. That is what keeps the bankruptcy figures down. If it reaches that stage in agriculture, you not only lose your home and your farm, but your whole life's work, your pension plan.
What do farmers do in that kind of situation? They borrow money, Mr. Speaker, at those high interest rates on which most of us would turn our backs and do anything but borrow. Or they go outside the farm and get a job at Stelco, Dofasco, Hydro or wherever. Then they come home at night and on the weekends and farm their land in order to keep it and to prevent bankruptcy. Or their wives go back on the labour market instead of staying home and looking after the family. When it comes down to it, rather than declare bankruptcy, most of those farmers will put their farm on the market for what they can get, thereby ensuring payment to their creditors rather than taking the final step into bankruptcy. So the bankruptcy figures, Mr. Speaker, do not represent the problems in agriculture today.
If we are to arrive at the best way to market farm products, we must understand and address the problems of the producers, we must assist marketing not only within Canada but around the world. The Farm Credit Corporation has been given a new lease on life to help the agricultural industry, and the Small Business Development Bond program is going to be given great amounts of money to assist those farmers in dire straits but, typically, it is all too little, too late and masked in confusion.
If a farmer goes to the FCC, he is told the regulations are correct and he must be turned down by banks and other lending institutions before he qualifies. It is not the fault of the FCC's field men, Mr. Speaker. Those who man the offices are capable and very concerned. It is the fault of a government that will not properly fund the corporation to enable its officials to look at the farmers' problems and help them to produce the goods we hope to sell around the world through Canagrex.
So the farmer, having been told that he must be turned down by the banks first, turns to the banks, Mr. Speaker, and inquires about the Small Business Development Bond. What is he told? We do not have the regulations yet from the government as to what it entails. Two months after the budget was brought down the banks still do not know what to do about it.
Now that we see a draft of the Small Business Development Bond program, what do the regulations say? They say you must first be turned down by other lending institutions. So we have the FCC saying you must be turned down by the banks and other lending institutions, and the Small Business Development Bond regulations saying the same thing. Where does the circle end, Mr. Speaker? When is that government over there going to assist farmers with acceptable interest rates?
This government makes promises. Canagrex was one, and a good one, but there were other promises made during the election. Farmers in my riding were told that the government would review the capital gains tax with the idea of reducing or eliminating it for farmers. They were told that V-day would be advanced from 1971 to 1974. What actually took place, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) took those promises, threw them out the window and hit the farmers harder than they have ever been hit before.


Erik Nielsen: Right between the eyes.


T.A. Bud Bradley: What could have been done for farmers in that budget in order to bring Canagrex in at a time when it could be of some assistance in ensuring production of goods and to provide us with a definite picture of agriculture's future? Something could have been set up to give real assistance on interest rates. The Farm Credit Corporation could have been allowed to acquire money from the private sector. A mortgage interest deductibility program could have been set up, if not for all Canadians at least for those in food production. Concessions could have been made on fuel and energy rebates for agriculture. Capital gains could have been exempted at least, as we have proposed, once in a lifetime for the bona fide farmer.
A farmer's operation is his pension plan, Mr. Speaker. He puts all his money back into the farm for his eventual retirement. Then he has to turn around and hand it all back to the minister in charge of income tax. Those are some of the things that could have been done, Mr. Speaker and they must be done if we are going to be realistic in facing the problems of agriculture, if we want to assist in the necessary marketing abroad. Farmers should be able to grow all they can and be satisfied that they will have a market for their produce.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that there are a great many arguments for and against the government's getting into agricultural export assistance. I am anxious to get into this subject in committee to see what the advantages are and what can be done. I want to find out if this is the best method to assist in the export of agricultural products. This leads me to the corporation versus the department, Mr. Speaker; to the utilization of embassies and staff, and whether it can be done with the number of staff members and funding allotted to the corporation.
I would like to carry on, Mr. Speaker, but I see the time is running short and I wonder if I may now call it four o'clock?
January 29, 1982


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
Item No. 48 allowed to stand by unanimous consent. METRIC CONVERSION

Douglas Charles Neil: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should declare a moratorium on metrication, disband the Metric Commission and. refer the question ol conversion to the metric system to a standing committee of the House of Commons for study and review, and that the review extend to all aspects of the metric system and include the hearing and consideration of the views of interested persons and organizations and that the committee make recommendations that appear to the committee then to be necessary or desirable; and that the committee have the power to adjourn from place to place within Canada.
He said: In the Monday, January 11 edition of the Kingston Whig-Standard, there was an editorial entitled "Metric Madness: An Unconscionable Assault on Freedom." I would just like to read, for a moment, the first two or three paragraphs, because I think they are very interesting. The editorial states:
For people who can't tell the difference between an end and a means, I recommend a Mac Tackaberry.
In a front-page story the other day in The Whig-Standard, Mr. Tackaberry said all that there is to say. I'm only writing this to praise him.
For Mr. Tackaberry, there is no difference in principle between metric law and martial law. There isn't.
And for this Kingston businessman, metric measurement itself is not the issue. It isn't.
It is the use of force, by government, to do something that it wants to do, and to make many people do what they do not want to do.
Mr. Tackaberry says that he is prepared to resist the forcible imposition of metric law; that he is prepared to let the government close down his business, with its 30 employees; that he is prepared to go to jail.
How did this all come about? Canada has recognized the metric system since 1871. It was a voluntary system, and I emphasize the word "voluntary". Then, on January 16, 1970, to be exact, a white paper was tabled in the House of Commons. As is customary, the white paper, when it was tabled, was briefly commented on by a representative from each of the parties. At that time, our then House leader, Mr. Ged Baldwin, the then hon. member for Peace River, as recorded at page 2471 of Hansard, had this to say:
1 agree that there must be a continuous and detailed study. We are prepared to co-operate with the government in this regard ... I would strongly urge the minister to give some thought to having the white paper he tabled today
Metrication
submitted either to a special or to a joint committee so that there might be a continuous study and reports from time to time to this committee by the boards the minister proposes to set up.
There was no reference of the white paper to a committee, and there was no debate in the House of the basic principles of metrication. However, based on that white paper, the Metric Commission was set up. I am not sure under which minister it was set up. I assume it was the then minister of industry, trade and commerce. However, the Metric Commission was comprised of four bureaucrats who were out of touch with the real world, the same types of bureaucrats, I would suspect, who prepared the budget which was handed down in the House on November 12.
Once this metrication committee was set up, it proceeded to try to implement metrication in the country. The committee members were able to persuade some of their fellow bureaucrats in the other provinces to go along with them. In Saskatchewan, for example, the land titles act was changed. The basic law of the land in the province of Saskatchewan was changed by an order in council dated April 20, 1976, prepared by bureaucrats and presumably signed by a minister somewhere along the way. However, what was interesting to find out, as we did, was that the matter of changing the land titles system in the province of Saskatchewan and, I assume, in the other provinces as well, was never debated in the legislature. As a matter of fact, when some of the Saskatchewan Members of Parliament found out that this order in council had been passed in Saskatchewan, we contacted some of the provincial MLAs and some of the ministers of that government and we asked, "What has happened? What went on? You have changed the land titles system to metric." What was their response? They said, "You are crazy. We never did that." We said, "Well, here is your order in council."
The Metric Commission bureaucrats persuaded the bureaucrats in Saskatchewan to change the land titles system. It is really a physical impossibility to change the land system from acres to hectares because the land in the prairies is surveyed on the square mile. There are 640 acres to the square mile, and 160 acres to a quarter section. One cannot convert to the metric system without having a whole bunch of decimals, which is absolutely ridiculous. The Metric Commission bureaucrats, as well, persuaded the bureaucrats in the provinces to change our speed limit signs in the provinces to kilometres per hour. There was no discussion and no debate. It was passed by order in council.
It was not until December of 1976, or early in 1977, that the question of the metric system ever arose in the House again, but by then it was a fait accompli. The metric system has moved along to the stage where the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Hon. Otto Lang, brought a bill into the House which was to change the Canadian Wheat Board Act, to change the Grain Commission Act, and to change the Weights and Measures Act from imperial to metric, making the imperial system illegal. That led to quite a lengthy debate.

January 29, 1982
Metrication


David P. Smith: This is true.


Douglas Charles Neil: It was violently opposed by the members of the official opposition because we knew, through discussions with our constituents, what they felt. It was interesting, because the present leader of the Liberal Party in Saskatchewan, the former hon. member for Assiniboia, Mr. Ralph Goodale, who prided himself on having his finger on the pulse of the people spoke in the House on January 26 in this debate. What did he say? He said:
I want to deal with a few of the aspects of metric conversion affecting grain which may not be fully appreciated but upon the basis of which 1 believe this measure is not only supportable but is also in the best long-run interests of all segments of the grains industry, including producers in the prairie region. First, it should be noted that this change has a broad and virtually unanimous base of support in the farm community.
He went on to say that he had visited his constituency and that the people there were all in favour of metric.


Donald W. Munro: Do you know what happened to Ralph? Where is Ralphie now?


Douglas Charles Neil: The minister in charge of the Wheat Board at that time, the Hon. Otto Lang, supported the metric system, of course.


Donald W. Munro: Where is he?


Douglas Charles Neil: He is not here, either. However, his argument was that the change to metrication would save the farmers and grain producers some $5 million a year. He could not explain it. They were not letting anybody off. They were spending all this money on conversion of their scales, but he said, "We are saving the prairie farm producer $5 million."
I travel throughout my constituency on a regular basis. I visit every elevator in my constituency, and there are a lot of them. In my travels I have only found one elevator agent who agrees with and is in favour of the metric system. He is in favour because he started after the system was imposed. However, without exception when you visit an elevator, the agent will tell you two things. First, they wish it had never been changed. Second, 99 per cent of the farmers delivering grain to the elevator say to the agent that it is fine to receive their ticket marked in tonnes, but they would like to know how many bushels were on their load and how many bushels they have sold.
This not only concerns the elevators but the stores. We have moved to the stage where a recent order in council has made metrication in the stores compulsory. Two years ago when it was rumoured that the stores would be forced to go metric, I visited many storekeepers in smaller towns where there is only one store.
Generally speaking, such a store is run by an elderly couple. They live above the store because their income is marginal. They told me that if they had to convert to metric and spend money on new scales, their income could not stand it and they
would have to close. We would have a situation where there is a small town and no store. That is fine for young people with a car. They can drive to the nearest city or town where there is a store. However, the senior citizens who live in those towns, and there are many of them, will be faced with great difficulty when buying their groceries.
The grocery stores are being forced to convert to metric, and we do not even manufacture such scales in Canada. They must be imported. The cost to convert the scales in Canada will be $584 million, and that is only an estimate. Who will pay for that conversion? It will be added on to the price of the goods and you, I and other consumers will pay the cost. Our cost of living will increase. This is inflationary. No wonder our cost of living keeps going up.
In addition, money is being spent on advertising. We are going to pay Madame Benoit and Bruno Gerussi $110,000 for appearing on a television advertising campaign. They will show how to cook food using the metric system. I do not think it will taste any different, but that is good money for them. I understand that $1.8 million will be spent to advertise the change to metric in the grocery stores. This is unbelievable.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is not in the chamber. However, when the white paper was tabled in January, the present Minister of Transport was then minister of industry, trade and commerce, and this is what he had to say when the white paper was filed:
Because of the close ties between the United States and Canada in science, technology, industry and commerce, each country has a special interest in the course likely to be followed by the other in respect of metric conversion.
All we on this side of the House have ever asked is that we move in step with the United States, our largest trading partner. It is interesting to note that the Americans are not going metric.


David P. Smith: Have you bought gas in the United States lately? It is in litres.


Douglas Charles Neil: It is not compulsory there like it is here. It is voluntary. I do not have anything against something being voluntary but when a government, be it federal, provincial or municipal, forces something upon the people against their wishes, it is wrong. That is what is happening here.
The United States is not going metric. In fact, it is disbanding the metric commission in the United States. It is walking its last kilometre. Britain went metric and now it is changing back. New Zealand went metric and it is changing back.
Talk to those in the lumber mills and you will hear from them that the call for metric lumber is minimal. A few days ago I talked with a lumberman who ships a lot of lumber to the European Economic Community which uses the metric system. He said that the lumber he ships is 2 x 4, 2 x 8 and 2 X 6. He does not ship one piece of metric lumber. However, an attempt was made to force the lumber industry to convert to metric. Unbelievable.
The temperature has been given in Celsius for the past six or seven years. Most people now understand Celsius. However,
January 29, 1982

the CBC shows a little fellow paddling a canoe. First it shows 10 degrees, then 9, 7, and so on down to zero when his paddle freezes in the ice. At zero degrees the water freezes, turns to ice and that is the end of the act. I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars is being spent on that advertisement.
I see my time is running out, Mr. Speaker. I only have another two or three minutes. However, 1 would point out that many members, including myself, have conducted polls of their constituents on various matters such as capital punishment, metrication and so on. It has been found that 98 per cent of those polled are opposed to the metric system. When travelling around my constituency or in my constituency office, the metric issue is raised more often than any other item, with the exception of the budget which caused great consternation among my constituents. The metric issue is always in the mind of constituents. They cannot understand why the government forces it upon them. However, Big Daddy knows what is best.
When you have a Prime Minister who says he approves of martial law, it is not likely he will change his position with regard to the metric system. I urge backbenchers on the government side to give heed to the pleas of their constituents with respect to metrication and urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the minister in charge of metrication to take a second look at it. The minister responsible for the metric system should take a look at it again. I would recommend that the way to do it would be in accordance with my motion which provides for the placing of a moratorium on metrication, the disbanding of the Metric Commission and the setting up of a standing or special committee which could travel across Canada to receive briefs and hear the recommendations of Canadians. It could then come back with its recommendations.


David P. Smith: It is a backward step.


Douglas Charles Neil: If it is backward, it is backward because the Liberal Party forced metrication on the people of Canada.
The standing committee should have gone across the country initially, before the decision was made. It was not done and now is the time to do it.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) concerning the metric conversion program.
The motion before us suggests that we should replace an effective and efficiently running organization, namely, the Metric Commission of Canada, with another committee which will not only duplicate much of the work already completed by the commission but which will have no responsibility to achieve any concrete results.
The program that we already have in place is progressing very well and is about to come to a successful conclusion in the near future, largely due to the co-ordinating efforts of Metric Commission Canada.
Metrication
I would like to explain how Metric Commission Canada has already fulfilled and is now fulfilling exactly the role proposed by the hon. member for a standing committee. Since its inception, the commission has assumed the responsibility, and its mandate, of reviewing all aspects of the implementation of the metric system in Canada. From the time that all House leaders supported the white paper on metric conversion in 1970-I would remind hon. members opposite of that- through to the end of 1975 when the investigative phase of the conversion program was essentially completed, the Metric Commission was actively involved in assessing the impact of metric conversion on every sector of the economy in Canada.
I would like to quote from the statement of the former member for Peace River, Mr. Baldwin, made at the time of the tabling of the white paper on metric conversion. He said:
I agree there must be a continuous and detailed study. We are prepared to co-operate with the government in this regard.
That is what Mr. Baldwin, a Conservative member, had to say at that time. Yet, when the Metric Commission has been and continues to be, engaged in assessments and reviews, there is a motion on the floor to undo the work of the commission.
An integral part of carrying out this assessment was and still is the co-operation and support received from over 2,000 volunteers representing private industry, agriculture, education and consumers at large. These representatives were chosen by their peers through national associations and organizations, large and small, to work on sector committees in order to recommend, guide and monitor individual conversion plans which reflect the best interests of their respective industries.
Speaking of the education sector, I was speaking to a teacher from a junior high school who is a friend of mine in Toronto, and a very reasonable person. She was saying that the students of this generation have picked up metric very easily.


Donald W. Munro: So did I. Years ago. Where were you brought up?


David P. Smith: It is shocking that you want to go back to this. These sector committees continually review the progress of conversion in light of changing conditions such as, for example, consumer reaction, trade opportunities and economic and practical experience. This is an ongoing and knowledgeable review by those who will bear the brunt of the costs and the benefits of metric conversion. This continual review, assessment and corrective action are the ongoing business of sector committees, and their worth is efficiently co-ordinated by Metric Commission Canada.
It should also be emphasized that it has taken many years of co-operative effort to acquire the necessary knowledge and expertise to make the multitude of decisions required to set each industry on the least costly and most judicious course of metric conversion. This has been accomplished through volunteer representatives under the co-ordination of the Metric Commission.
One of the great achievements of Metric Commission Canada has been to organize some 100 sector committees,

January 29, 1982
Metrication
bringing together representatives from large and small businesses alike, from management and labour, to sit down together around one table and to work co-operatively toward a common objective. This accomplishment is not a minor one and it should not be expected that a newly-appointed standing committee could do anything different from what the Metric Commission has already achieved.
As part of its responsibility to co-ordinate metric conversion in Canada, the commission continually monitors the views of Canadians at large and is open to representation by both individuals and organizations.


Donald W. Munro: You cannot believe all that.


David P. Smith: The commissioners meet on a regular basis in cities across Canada and hold open sessions which are publicly announced well in advance of the meetings. Time is set aside at each meeting to hear representations from interested persons and organizations on whatever aspect of conversion they wish to discuss. These meetings are usually well attended by local citizens and the press and opportunity is provided for anyone who wants to address the commission. I was shocked when I heard the hon. member from Drumheller talk about Hitlerism and this being imposed on the people.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is what it is.


David P. Smith: He simply is not familiar with the process that allows the maximum possible input which has been in effect since the beginning of the commission.


Donald W. Munro: It is not standing in law.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are not familiar with what the people think.


David P. Smith: A further responsibility which has been assigned to Metric Commission Canada is to make available a broad range of information materials both for those who specifically request them and for general use by the public. The co-ordination and dissemination of information is most essential when the implementation of conversion plans are under way. This is one of the key roles of the Commission, and the one which is only just coming to a peak as the implementation phase passes the mid-point of completion. Any disruption in metric conversion will seriously undermine the information program which is progressing not only through Metric Commission Canada but, more important, through the auspices of the various sectors of the Canadian economy as they implement metric conversion.
Another of the key functions of Metric Commission Canada is to make recommendations to the minister regarding the future progress of conversion in Canada. In this regard, the sector committees which have embarked on the metric conversion program, with the guidance and support of the government through Metric Commission Canada, have made it clear that metric conversion cannot be accomplished unilaterally by industries alone and that the government's commitment and
leadership are essential to the successful completion of the program. It does not appear logical for the government to terminate the support and co-ordination provided by Metric Commission Canada just as the program is reaching its final stage. Without the co-operation and involvement of all levels of government, metric conversion is likely to be unnecessarily prolonged and the interests of consumers and businesses will suffer accordingly.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Throw it out entirely.


David P. Smith: It is extremely important to recognize the amount of time, effort and money expended by thousands of people across Canada from every walk of life in support of the decision to proceed with metric conversion in an orderly fashion. This decision was taken to ensure that Canada is in step with the rest of the world.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David P. Smith: This effort is about to come to fruition. I cannot help it if hon. members opposite still prefer to live back in the ice age. That is up to them.
The implementation phase which has been under way in some sectors of the economy since 1975 is close to 60 per cent complete at this time. Over 50 per cent in the 94 sectors of the Canadian economy which have published sector plans expect that their programs will be substantially completed before December, 1984. By this time, metric measures will be used by Canadians for most commercial and legal transactions.
Is this really the time to impose a moratorium on metric conversion?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, absolutely. You should never have started.


David P. Smith: On the contrary, I suggest that this is the time to strengthen our effort, to realize the benefits and to complete the program. Let us not carry on forever analysing the pros and cons of metric conversion. It has been said the most costly aspect of conversion has been the debate. The expenses incurred over the years on debating the pros and cons, the costs and benefits, and the problems and opportunities would likely have paid for the major portion of the conversion program itself. I do not think that we should add to that expense with another protracted debate.
I would like to illustrate how different sectors of the Canadian economy are adapting to the changeover to metric with a minimum of fuss.
Metric conversion in the oil and gas industry is an example of a conversion that has proceeded relatively smoothly. I know that my hon. friend is very interested in the oil and gas industry. That is one example. This has been brought about by the leadership exhibited by the Canadian Petroleum Association. The Association, realizing the necessity to formulate a well-thought-out plan for the industry, established a committee in 1972 with the responsibility of bringing about an orderly transition to metric conversion on a least cost basis. The
January 29, 1982

committee is truly representative of the industry and comprises individuals knowledgeable of all phases of the industry. In this sector, which is very important to Canada, production and field operations have been essentially metric since January, 1979. Similarly, the mining industry and the chemical industry are now operating to a great extent with metric measurements.
Motor vehicle manufacturers are one of the leaders in Canada's metric conversion program. In this regard, Canada had to keep in step with the United States automotive industry which started the move to metric. Early in the conversion process the industry identified many long-term advantages to going metric and, by careful planning, were able to introduce a progressive conversion, thus minimizing the short-term costs. Some of the advantages foreseen were standardization of designs and components, reduction in the number of sizes of items such as fasteners and the use of one system of measurement throughout worldwide operations.
An example of how a major industry has an impact on other supplying sectors is metric conversion in the rubber and plastics industries. With automobiles and parts designed and manufactured in metric terms, many rubber and plastic components have also been converted to metric. Further progress toward metric conversion is expected as more companies are identifying their products in metric terms in response to the market demands. Metric production is also under way in the reinforced plastics composites, injection moulded parts and many other plastic items in response to market demands.
The rubber and plastics industries have both stated that hard conversion, with product size rationalization, will be pursued wherever possible for long-term benefits, with the ultimate objective of international standardization. Conversion is to be compatible with related domestic and worldwide industries and achieved with minimal cost.
Metric conversion in Canada is not confined to heavy industries. There is considerable progress in areas that relate to consumers.
Metric conversion of specific food products has included prepackaged meats, confectionary items, dairy products, canned and frozen fruits and vegetables, jams and jellies, juices, biscuits, cooking and salad oils, sugar and snack foods.
This conversion in the food industry, a sector of the economy that impacts on every consumer in Canada, has been achieved with a minimum of inconvenience. In many cases the consumer is not even aware that the product he or she is buying has been converted to metric.
It is estimated that 75 per cent of prepackaged grocery products have been converted to metric sizes. Grocery manufacturers have completed this planning on a voluntary basis via 16 industry-sector committees. The benefits for the Canadian consumer resulting from metric conversion have been less proliferation of product sizes and ease in calculating unit prices and in comparing product prices because of uniform product sizes.
Metrication


Donald W. Munro: Do you really believe
that?


David P. Smith: Sure.
In conclusion, it is evident that the metric conversion program embarked upon by this country over ten years ago is well on its way to completion, due to the tremendous support, co-operation and effort of every sector of the Canadian economy. By delaying the completion of the program any further, not only would we be creating needless confusion and expense but, of more serious consequence, we would be undermining the support and trust of Canadians from coast to coast who have worked so hard to make this program a success.
In light of the many accomplishments achieved to date under the guidance of Metric Commission Canada, which is successfully fulfilling the roles proposed for a new standing committee, I must reject any moratorium on metric conversion, the abolition of Metric Commission Canada or the creation of a new standing committee. Consequently, there appears to be no valid reason for supporting the motion before us.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I fully support the sentiments expressed in the excellent and splendid address given by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). The hon. member for Moose Jaw reflected the thinking of the people. The Metric Commission wrote a lovely speech for the parliamentary secretary. The Metric Commission writes well, and the parliamentary secretary reads well, but surely he does not believe that baloney!
I have never seen anything so totalitarian in this country as the imposition of metric on the people. The people are told they have to have it. It was a dupe from the very beginning. Organizations were told that this has to be. The heads of organizations were talked into believing that the United States and England were changing. The agreement of these organizations was almost forced from them. Talk about something being totalitarian and communist-the way this was done is comparable to the way the German people were duped by Hitler. It is exactly the same. The people of Germany were duped by Hitler. They got involved in Nazism, and millions of people lost their lives. Metrication is as totalitarian as anything the communists in Moscow ever produced. It is as communist as that.
We are living in a democracy. The government is supposed to reflect the thinking of the people, but here the parliamentary secretary, speaking for the Liberal Party, objects to going out to the people and finding out what the people want. The hon. member from Moose Jaw wants a moratorium. He wants to go to the people to find out what the people want, but the Liberals do not. Oh, no, that is too democratic. They cannot go for that.
Metrication is imposed on the people of Canada. The Liberals tell the people they have to have it and that they are going to like it. Then what do they do? They take the people's money and spend it to persuade the people that they have to have metrication. Two excellent artists were paid $110,000 to try to

January 29, 1982
Metrication
persuade the people of Canada that metric is okay. Metric has already been imposed on us, but now the government has started to try to sell the idea to us. It is trying to make us think it is good. Thousands and perhaps millions of dollars are being spent to persuade the people through TV, radio, newspapers and so forth. The commission is travelling and it has spent more than $50 million. Then the people are asked to exercise restraint and to tighten their belts. The government talks about cutting down government expenses. This is an extravagant government. It says one thing and does another. Members of the government talk about restraint and then spend like wild drunkards spending somebody else's money. That is exactly what this government is doing.
We are told we cannot have two measurements. We have two languages in this country. Do the Liberals say we cannot have two languages? Oh, no; we can have two languages, but we cannot have two measurements. One can be voluntary; the other cannot. The Liberal government is the most inconsistent government I have ever seen or heard of. Hon. members opposite talk about being backward. The parliamentary secretary read from the brief prepared by the Metric Commission that a moratorium would be a backward step. The budget of the Liberals has set the country back fifty years. They do things backwards all the time. Turkeys take one step forward and two steps back. The Liberals occasionally-as in the case of the FCC bill-take one step forward, but then they take about ten steps back. They are completely backwards.


David P. Smith: Watch your blood pressure now, Gordon.


Gordon Edward Taylor: There is nothing wrong with my blood pressure. I am speaking for the people of Canada.


Mr. Waddell:: Right on.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I do not have somebody writing my speeches for me. I am speaking for what the people of Canada want.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is about time the Liberals started to learn what the people of Canada want. The Liberals tell the people what is good for them and spend their money.
The hon. member from Moose Jaw spoke about lumber. A trucker told me he hauled a truckload of lumber from British Columbia to the United States. The load was measured in metric, and the Americans told him to take it back. That was a complete waste of money. It is no wonder Reagan is being supported in the United States. He has disbanded the metric commission there, and it is about time we did that here. The Prime Minister (Mr.Trudeau) says we have to have metric, so every Liberal member says we have to have metric.
A few weeks ago the Prime Minister said we would have a constitution unilaterally whether the people of Canada liked it or not, and every Liberal said, "Yes, yes, right on, Pierre". Then a few weeks later when the court ruled against that-the issue having been forced by my party-the Prime Minister said, "Oh, no, now we have to have consensus". So every
Liberal changed his tune again and said, "Yes, yes, oui, oui, right on, Pierre, we want consensus". They said they could not go for unilateralism, yet they supported it previously. Now we have Metric Commission bureaucrats telling this country we have to have metric.


Donald W. Munro: Metrocrats.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We do not have to have metric at all. This is a hoax. The people of this country are being duped. The people of Canada are being tricked and deceived. They are being dealt with inconsistently and in a totalitarian way. They are being dealt with in a way even more totalitarian than is the case in Moscow, yet the Liberals stand up and support that. I ask Liberal members to go to any town or village and to talk to the thousands of people who sent letters to the commission when they were given 30 days to demonstrate whether they wanted metric in grocery stores. Thousands of people signed it, but what was the use? The government did not even read the petition. We have not got a democratic government, we have a totalitarian government. If I were sitting on that side of the House I would move. I would not support totalitarianism. I fought against it and I never expected that I would have to fight it again in this House. The government is imposing the metric system on Canada and that is not right, Mr. Speaker. It is completely wrong.
I suggest that we should have a vote in the House today to find out if the people of Canada want a moratorium. The people could tell us whether they want metric at all. I challenge the Liberals not to talk this bill out. For once, let us find out what the people want and reflect it in the legislation. That would make hon. members opposite much happier than the totalitarianism that is being practised now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to display more restraint and moderation than the previous speaker in my attempt to show that the metric conversion process really meets the expectations of Canadians in this new decade. It is a pity the hon. member opposite who spoke before me is still living in the thirties, but I want to tell him that this government is legislating for the young people of the future, not for the past. And I might tell him also that people of my age may have some difficulty adjusting to the new system, but there is no point asking younger people to think in terms of pounds and miles and so on. All they know is the metric system. Therefore, as a responsible government, we have to legislate for the present and mainly for the future, for the generation which will take over from us in a few years.
The motion seeks to stop all metric conversion in Canada and to set up a standing committee to reconsider metric conversion. I think that after ten years, the time to set up a
January 29, 1982

committee to find out where we stand is long past. I notice that newspapers, commercials and supermarkets are already advertising in kilograms and in pounds. Since January, all advertising by the big food chains has been in kilograms and pounds so that people can get used to it. Several sectors with representatives on the Metric Commission have pointed out that in their industries, metrication is almost completed. Until now, various sectors of business, industry, education, labour and agriculture have published 94 conversion plans. Today, 1 rose precisely to speak on behalf of Canadian producers, consumers, etc. Eighty per cent of these sectors are expecting to reach their conversion objective before December 1984. Moreover, the conversion of scales in retail food stores, which is the last major program to affect consumers, is now being implemented in most Canadian cities.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the progress of metric conversion and its importance for the Canadian economy. Here is important news for farmers: the Versatile Manufacturing company, from Winnipeg, which produces agricultural machinery, has just launched on the market a line of farming tractors designed in metric units. Canadian subsidiaries of American corporations, including John Deere, Caterpillar and others, had already done so several years ago. Let's not forget that total Canadian exportations of agricultural products are worth more than $6 billion annually, which represents almost 40 per cent of cash revenues for farmers, and this figure equals our fourth largest field of export to the United States, newsprint. Over 80 per cent of these agricultural products are exported to metric countries.
From now on, newsprint and pulp will be traded at the international level only in metric measures. Heaven knows how important that industry is for us in Canada! The province I have the honour of representing in the House, the province of Quebec, is an important newsprint producer and exporter. The oil and natural gas sectors having been converted to the metric system, almost 50 per cent of our exports, even those destined for the United States will from now on be measured in metric.
Mr. Speaker, let us add to that the ever-increasing share of our exports to the European Economic Community, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, the Soviet Union and China, all countries which converted to the metric system long before we did. It will then be realized how important metrication is. At least two thirds of Canada's $10 billion exports increase in 1980 were shipped to countries other than the United States. It should also be understood that if we want to keep on benefiting from the products we grow or make in Canada, we must export in order to be able to import the products we want.
Since the Canadian government adopted, its metric system policy ten years ago, our exports as well as their percentage expressed in metric units, have increased threefold. Since the beginning of the week, yesterday as well as the day before, we have been discussing Canagrex, a corporation engaged with the export of agricultural products, and if our Canadian
Metrication
exporters and farmers want to trade with the countries I have just mentioned they must go metric. The Task Force on packaging of freight goods recommends and promotes the conversion of standards for palettes, containers and charging units. Ironmonger shops within the iron and steel industry are already metric and the construction industry is proceeding well. Of great significance is the fact that the National Building Code was only published in August 1980.
Certain industrial sectors with the advice and help of the Consumers' Association of Canada and the responsible government departments have requested that deadlines be set and the exclusive use of metric units be compulsory thereafter. This explains, Mr. Speaker, why the Statute Law Metric Conversion Act (Statute Law Amendment 1976) was passed by Parliament and received royal assent in August, 1977. Pursuant to that act, for instance, a modified regulation under the Weights and Measures Act provides that retailers must sell gas by the litre. This conversion was completed by the end of 1980. A similar regulation established pursuant to the Weights and Measures Act provides that furnishings such as wallpapers, carpets, and bedspreads must be advertised and sold only in metric units as of January 1981.
The role of the Metric Commission Canada which will soon celebrate its tenth birthday is to give support to over 16,000 metric system conversion co-ordinators within the industry in the carrying out of their companies' conversion plans according to the sectorial plans and the four-phase investigation, planning, organization and implementation program. The metric labels on prepackaged products like toothpaste or food products such as sugar and salt, were the first visible signs of the metric conversion being in process. Later on, weather bulletins and forecasts started referring to Celsius degrees. Then, in September. 1977, traffic signs began indicating distances in kilometres and speed limits in kilometres per hour, as well as speedometers on new car models.
Many of us, Mr. Speaker, tend to resist any kind of change. Therefore I am glad to note that since metrication has been introduced Canadians' response has been very favourable. More and more people support this program as they get better acquainted with the new metric system and their initial fears are dispelled. The fact is that metrication has been gently phased in. Since the new temperature units were introduced in 1975, every stage of the conversion program has been preceded by a cooling-off period to allow people to become thoroughly familiar with the process until further changes were made. In their daily life, most Canadians will only need four basic metric units, metres for distance, litres for volume, kilograms for mass and Celsius degrees for temperature. The last stage, namely implementation, will soon be 60 per cent completed. Most Canadians are getting used to metric units as various sectors of our economy implement their conversion plans.

January 29, 1982
Metrication
For instance, the conversion of scales in the food retail trade is a significant metric development for all Canadians. As regards the general public, it is the most important step in the conversion program to the metric system in Canada. In other areas of our economy that conversion is essential as it is carried out in accordance with the objectives of the metric policy of the Government of Canada.
As I said earlier, food stores will continue with the conversion of their scales into metric units, and this was started on January 4, 1982, in the larger cities in Canada. Sales and promotional activities with respect to individually weighed food products in the stores will be converted over a period of two years according to a carefully conceived and planned schedule. Individual schedules have been prepared by 19 district committees in all areas in Canada, those committees being made up of well over 400 volunteers from the food retail trade, the Canadian Consumers' Association, the scales industry, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada and the Metric Commission of Canada. They are co-ordinating their efforts in order to convert the scales at the retail store level with a minimum of costs and inconveniences. Regulations on weights and measures as applied by Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada have delineated 100 geographical areas in Canada and established their respective schedules.
Mr. Speaker, may I recall that we have decided upon metrication because we want to promote the export of Canadian products. And we all know that exporting our products means creating jobs for Canadians. We are largely dependent in this country upon the export trade to make a living and to maintaining our standard of living which is envied all around the world. Indeed, 31 cents out of each Canadian dollar come from exports. By converting to the metric system we will join 99.8 per cent of the world countries which have already adopted that system or are in the process of doing so. This should level the barriers which are created in a world where people work under two weights and measures systems and that could prevent Canada from improving its export trade with United States and the rest of the world.
I am speaking, of course, on behalf of Canadian agriculture and I know my friends opposite, those who spoke before me, are staunch supporters of Canadian agriculture. For many
years, I had the opportunity to discuss and meet with farmers, and I have yet to meet a farmer from my riding, my area, my province who told me that the new metric system caused him problems. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the farmers I meet, and as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture I meet many of them, teach me a lot about metrication. They know that system by heart, they have no problem in talking about 2,000 metric tons. And as I said at the outset of my speech, on this side of the House we legislate for the present and the future, and the future is our youth.
Of course, I repeat that it might be somewhat difficult for our generation to use the metric system but I urge the hon. members opposite to go and meet young people and ask them if they have any problems with the metric system. Mr. Speaker, that is why we cannot find any valid reason to support this motion.


Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) concerning the metric conversion program.
The motion recommends that tens of thousands of Canadians stop the work they have voluntarily been engaged in for nearly ten years and that a standing committee of the House be set up to restudy why we decided to go metric in 1970. If I may, I would like to describe the nature of our national program in order to illustrate that the time for asking, "why go metric" has really passed, and that this is not a program which the Government of Canada can turn on and off like a tap without serious disruptions occurring in the marketplace.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Let's vote now.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to seek the unanimous consent of the House to extend the sitting hours by one hour in order for the hon. member to complete his remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 1, 1982