1983-06-07

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, July 29, 1982, consideration of Bill C-85, to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture; and Motions Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 (p. 19829).
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, it seems like only yesterday but in fact it was July 29, 1982, when I was interrupted in my speech on Canagrex. During that time little has changed. During that ten-month period the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has made two interventions in the House of Commons, one to bring in closure on Canagrex, and one to bring in closure on the Crow Bill. Little has changed and we are now forced to the end of a debate on a Bill for which there is no consensus and over which there is major concern. In the meantime, throughout those ten months approximately 10,000 agricultural and business bankruptcies have occurred in Canada.
This little Bill, as it is called by the Minister, would establish a Crown corporation for the promotion and facilitation of and engagement in the export of agricultural products in Canada. The root problems of Canadian agriculture do not lie in the failure of our export markets but in the inability of farmers to achieve commodity prices that can compensate them fairly for the high interest rates and high energy prices which are part of Liberal Government policy. The root problems of our ability to increase agricultural exports are tariff and non-tariff barriers in other countries, or the poverty that exists in countries where food is really needed and their inability to pay for our products.
All of Canadian agriculture, whether supportive of this Canagrex Bill or not, has been disappointed and dismayed at the neglect of the Government and the inability of the Minister of Agriculture to face agricultural problems in a constructive way. There is the Minister's failure to influence the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to bring in, in the last budget, effective long-term financing measures. There is his continued support of Liberal Government measures which have doubled
fuel costs and added significantly to fertilizer costs for farmers in Canada, the failure of the Minister to support a stabilization plan for the hog and beef industries, and his failure to ensure a fair tax system for capital gains and farmers who must work off the farm to survive. None of these things would be quite so bad if he had not promised them repeatedly.
Canagrex has its supporters and its detractors. As part of its support, I would quote the Ontario Federation of Agriculture who said:
It appears to us, hearing the discussions to date, that many of the opponents to Canagrex have painted the worst possible scenario, depicting the crown corporation as a threat to free enterprise. We believe that it will be a boon to free enterprise, especially to small producers of agricultural and food products. Canada's farmers need the assistance and expertise such a body could offer, to allow us to compete effectively in the world marketplace.
The Toronto Star wrote an editorial in support of Canagrex. It said:
On the other hand, increased exports could allow farmers to produce more and receive the incomes they need without having to impose price increases on the consumer. In fact, properly handled, the Canagrex activity could allow Ottawa to move away from the use of food marketing boards which regulate food production and prices-and which have been shown to add considerably to consumer costs.
But it also has its detractors, Mr. Speaker, among whom are the Canadian Agricultural Market Development Advisory Council who make several points:
(A)	Enabling legislation should be abandoned because the need for the formation and existence of Canagrex has not been justified in the discussion paper.
(B)	Lack of qualified, experienced personnel.
(C)	The proposed funding for Canagrex would be more effectively used if added to the budgets of I.T. & C., E.D.C., and C.C.C.
(D)	The proposed "Policy Advisory Committee" for the proposed Canagrex might well be a good adjunct to assist I.T. & C. with their policies and programs, and to gain some inputs from the private sector.
(E)	If Agriculture Canada would employ its resources for agricultural export marketing by assisting IT&C, this would be much more profitable and come closer to the 'one-stop-shopping' suggested in paper as being desirable.

Finally:
Agriculture Canada's concern with 'import replacements' could, and should, be handled by them but does not require Canagrex.
In addition, The Globe and Mail wrote an editorial opposing the proposed legislation of Canagrex as it has been presented by the Minister. I quote from it as well:
Those who oppose the bill believe that it is an unwarranted Government intervention in the agriculture and exporting businesses. Earlier this year the opposition parties kept it for four months in the Commons Agriculture Committee and forced a considerable number of changes, among them that Canagrex could not itself go into the producing end of farming and that its buying and

June 7, 1983
Canagrex
selling activities would be limited to joint ventures with private traders, farm marketing boards or state to state deals.
Yet the opposition increases. More than 20 agricultural associations, representing more than half the agricultural industry measured by cash receipts from farm production, are now out against Canagrex. So are the Consumers Association of Canada, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Export Association, and the Export Trade Development Board. And so, briefly, when he was a junior minister and more easily shushed by his seniors, was Industry and Regional Expansion Minister Edward Lumley, who might not now be so easily shushed.
The Minister of Agriculture has made a variety of comments following his press release of February, 1981 announcing Canagrex. I would quote from one of them:
We must not surrender to the fear and the suspicion and cynicism that would smother Canagrex. Canagrex will help to show that we can co-operate, we can act positively as a nation, in the national interest.
Then in December, 1982, after only two days of proposed debate, he brought in closure. The last day of proposed debate in the House adjourned with me sitting in my seat waiting to speak and the Liberals could not find 18 Members of Parliament to form a quorum to debate this Bill. Then the Minister brought in closure.
We have an interesting situation and one that provides an opportunity for the Government to live up to its responsibility and the brave words of co-operation by the Minister.
We all have pride and expectation for Canada's agricultural producers. The one million Canadian farm workers each produce ten times the amount that a Russian farm worker produces and 100 times the amount an Asian farmer produces. Productivity has increased three times in the last 20 years and 12 times in the last 50 years. Our agricultural exports in 1981 were $8.8 billion and growing. We can do better and the Government can assist.
None of us is that happy with another Crown corporation. But if this is the best answer that the Liberals have to improve our long-term agricultural exports, then there is a consensus that Canagrex could be tried without the buy-sell provisions. The necessary financing could, as is now possible, be gained through Treasury Board approval. This would allow the corporation to be judged on its merit without having the automatic right to infringe on private enterprise activities which could give it a very unfair advantage, and if confidence was established it could be amended in the future. As it stands, it does indeed represent an entity capable of the worst fears of its detractors-unlimited and nearly unchallengeable bureaucratic invasion of the food production sector.
I do not expect the Minister to accept this suggestion because he has already refused on grounds that are at least as absurd as any argument against the Bill. Besides, it would be a reasonable thing to do and when he cannot do anything else for agriculture the smoke and mirrors of creating another diversion within agriculture is in his best political interest. It keeps farmers from putting themselves together to put pressure on him to help solve some of those root problems that threaten the viability of family farms across Canada.


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this opportunity to speak to Bill C-85, which is a very important piece of legislation for Canada's agricultural industry. As we all know, Canagrex will be a very important and useful agency for the Canadian agricultural sector. I wish I could say that I had invented Canagrex, but I have to admit that the suggestion came from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
The agency was created as a direct result of requests made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to the federal Government for an organization to promote export sales of agricultural products. In its representation, the Federation emphasized the fact that Canada's efforts to market agricultural products abroad were both fragmented and limited. Fragmented, because our trading partners often have trouble finding out with whom they should be dealing, and limited, because many producers who would be able to export Canadian agricultural products do not have the necessary resources to bring their products on the world market.
We know all the arguments advanced by opponents to the Bill. They claim the Bill would be an affront since it ignores everything they have done to promote exports of our agricultural products.
Perhaps we should stop here for a while. As I said before, positive measures have been taken in the agri-food export business in the past, especialy with respect to wheat, oil seeds and meat. No one is denying that. In fact, all this is clear from the fact that last year, our agricultural exports were worth $9.5 billion, which means a trading surplus of $3.1 billion, and 60 per cent of that surplus was due to grain and oil seed exports.
However, and this is our justification for creating the Canagrex Corporation, if we compare the remainder of our exports, that is, minus the grain component, with our total imports, we have an agricultural trade deficit of approximately $2 billion.
The non-grain sector of our industry is lagging behind because, as was pointed out earlier, here in Canada we do not have a mechanism to help farmers seek out potential markets.
Canadian farmers themselves have expressed the need for an agency like Canagrex that would provide a more diversified and better co-ordinated approach to the marketing of agri-food products abroad. It is not a takeover of our agricultural industry or a Communist plot, as our opponents are claiming in their propaganda literature. In fact, the kind of propaganda being made about Canagrex and the Crow rate reminds me of the words of a former President of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, who said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
June 7, 1983

In recent months, copies of Bill C-85 to establish the Cana-grex Corporation have been distributed, but from the controversy the Bill continues to raise, it would seem that our opponents have not bothered to read the actual text of the Bill.
Following certain concerns that were expressed, we made 14 substantial changes in the Bill, and I may point out that they were made to meet the demands of the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party.
Opponents of the Bill have based their charge of a takeover of the agricultural industry on three specific points: the purchase and sales aspect, the power to purchase property, and the Corporation's accountability. Every time, opponents to the Bill have managed to misrepresent the provisions of the Bill.
The powers of Canagrex with respect to the purchase and sales of products can be exercised only within the framework of its mandate, which is to promote and facilitate export sales of agricultural products and to proceed with the sale of such products, subject to the following restrictions. Canagrex may engage in export sales of agricultural products only when it is asked to enter into ventures jointly or in co-operation with companies, co-operatives, marketing boards, or individuals carrying on business in Canada, or within the framework of contracts with foreign governments.
The power to purchase, lease or otherwise acquire and hold real and personal property for actual use by the Corporation does not include the power to purchase, lease or otherwise acquire real property for the production of fruit, forage, grain, vegetable or other crops, the raising of cattle, poultry, sheep, swine or other livestock or the processing of any agricultural product or food product.
How can anyone be more precise, Mr. Speaker? Canagrex will not act unilaterally and be able to disregard agents now engaged in the international trade of agricultural products, I repeat, Canagrex will not be able to disregard agents now engaged in the international trade or to act as primary producer. That is very important because our colleagues opposite have often questioned the very existence or the aims of Canagrex. It was stated in false advertising that Canagrex would be in a position to act as primary producer, but that is false, Mr. Speaker. The legislation is quite clear in that respect and anyone who maintains the opposite view is unfair and can only be trying to mislead people.
As to criticisms about Canagrex being empowered to sign cooperative agreements with private commercial and agricultural organizations, I would point out that a good many provincial Crown corporations in Saskatchewan, Quebec and Prince Edward Island already have the power to buy, sell or hold real property. In fact, under the Agricultural Products Board Act, the Federal Government has had the power to buy and sell since 1952. Never did the provinces and the Federal
Canagrex
Government abuse that power, and things will not be any different with Canagrex.
As to the accountability of the corporation, the Bill provides for an annual comprehensive audit by the Auditor General. No other Crown corporation is subjected to such an audit and I must point out that the Auditor General, Mr. Kenneth Dye, was quite pleased with that provision. Being on that committee myself, I was very glad to see that Mr. Kenneth Dye had commended the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and Agriculture Canada for advocating that kind of control over a new Crown corporation. I really wonder how anyone can be critical of a Crown corporation whose accountability has been praised by the Auditor General himself.
Some people have claimed that they are not against the kind of power which Canagrex would have, but they would rather extend it only to existing corporations. I have only one comment to make in that respect, Mr. Speaker: since those corporations deal as well in the promotion of footwear, electronic equipment and agricultural products, which products will they promote first? Not food products, if the lack of respect sometimes shown for agriculture is an indication. What we need and what the Federation is asking for is a corporation which would deal exclusively in exports of agricultural products.
There can be no doubt that the private sector and the taxpayers are very well protected. We have done everything to ensure that Canagrex will show responsibility in exercising its powers. Briefly, Canagrex has the following powers: publish information on the markets, offer publicity and information services, make and give loans and guarantees; upon request, enter into cooperative contracts with private enterprises, marketing boards and cooperatives; enter into contracts with foreign governments; make grants or contributions to speed up promotion or development projects or the installation of the necessary infrastructures.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue to speak at length on this Bill, but I must conclude since the time allotted to me has ended.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of disgust that I rise to speak in the House of Commons this morning. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) are making a definite attempt to socialize a basic industry in Canada, that of producing food or agriculture in general.
[DOT] (U25)
It is absolutely distressing to see the Prime Minister allow the Minister of Agriculture to get away with it. We have to recognize that it was 5,000 years ago that an individual sold his birthright for a bowl of porridge. That is exactly what is happening in the House of Commons today. The Minister of Agriculture says he just wants a window on the industry. We heard that message some time ago when the then Minister of

June 7, 1983
Canagrex
Energy, Mines and Resources wanted PetroCan just for a window on the industry. A fine window it has developed into. It is one of the five largest oil companies in Canada. It was bought with the people's money.
Now we have a Bill that will allow the Government to price agriculture products. All you have to do to control anything is just set the selling price on it. If the Minister did not have that in mind, why would he not take away the buy and sell provision? Our concerns would then be alleviated. However, he will not drop that part of it. Therefore we have to assume that he is setting a mechanism in place that will allow this to happen.
I now quote some excerpts from a book:
Federalism must be welcomed as a valuable tool which permits dynamic Parties to plant socialist governments in certain Provinces from which the seed of radicalism can slowly spread-
-it is folly to endorse strategies that are devised to swing the whole country at the same time and in the same way into the path of socialism-
In terms of political tactics, the only real question democratic socialists must answer is: "Just how much reform can the majority of the people be brought to desire at the present time?"-
Perhaps even Parties with different names may reach the same ideology in different Provinces-
I should like to see socialists feeling free to espouse whatever political trends or to use whatever constitutional tools happen to fit each particular problem at each particular time.
Those quotes are taken from the book "Federalism and the French Canadian", written by the present Prime Minister, pages 125, 127, 128 and 130. If that does not tell us something, I do not know what will.
Some of the major agriculture industries in Canada do not want Canagrex, yet the Government and the Minister of Agriculture are flying in the face of those industries. I will read the names of some of them: Alberta Beekeepers Association; Alberta Canada All Breeds Association; Alberta Canola Growers Association; Alberta Cattle Commission; Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board; British Columbia Cattlemen's Association; British Columbia Pork Producers Association; Canadian Cattlemen's Association; Canadian Export Association; Canadian Meat Council; Canadian Seed Trade Association; Consumers' Association of Canada; Flax Growers Western Canada; Manitoba Canola Growers Association; Manitoba Cattle Producers' Association; Ontario Bean Dealers Association; Palliser Wheat Growers Association; Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association; Saskatchewan Hog Marketing Commission; Saskatchewan Stockgrowers' Association; Shippers and Exporters Association; Western Barley Growers' Association; Western Stockgrowers' Association. In spite of all this opposition, the Government is going to push through legislation that these people do not want. What in the world is Parliament coming to?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Dionne) said that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture started this some years ago. That is not so. It was the Manitoba Farm Bureau that started it about seven years ago. That body has now come around and is opposing it. Why does the Government misrepresent the position taken by these
people? It is absolutely wrong that we are pushing the free enterprise agriculture community into this socialist program. That is all it is. It will take control in spite of the denials made by the Minister of Agriculture.
As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), just mentioned, the Canadian agricultural producer produces ten times more than does his counterpart in Russia. Why, then, do we want to fall into a socialist trap? It is unbecoming, unrealistic and unwarranted.
1 want to read from a press release, Mr. Speaker, issued by all of the people who are in opposition to Canagrex so that it will be on the record:
The Government has again announced its intention to proceed in the House of Commons with the passage of Bill C-85, that would establish an Agricultural Export Crown Corporation-CANAGREX.
This, despite widespread opposition from the agricultural, trade and consumers sectors across Canada, including a majority of farm producers that could be affected by CANAGREX. The above mentioned associations have consistently opposed CANAGREX, as proposed in Bill C-85, and will today reestablish the facts about Canada's agricultural export trade and its potential. We are currently enjoying an all time high in agricultural export activity and, through existing export structures, are breaking new ground almost daily. We welcome the interest of the Government in seeing these exports expanded, but, we believe that the Government's initiative to create CANAGREX is redundant, most inappropriate and misdirected.
How much more straightforward can the opposition be than that, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture do not understand English.
REDUNDANT because we believe that the Government has presently at its disposal all the means it needs to support export growth in agriculture, without having to resort to the creation of yet another Crown Corporation. With only minor enlargement of their mandate, the Export Development Corporation, the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the Foreign Trade Service could quite adequately fulfill financial, institutional and marketing support functions-at a much lower expense to the taxpayer.
The Government forgets about the taxpayer. All the Government thinks about is how it can pick another buck out of the taxpayer's pocket. I must tell Members opposite that the supply of those bucks is coming to an end.
INAPPROPRIATE because through CANAGREX the Government wishes to establish itself as a direct trader, with the powers to buy and sell on international markets. This move would be directly opposite to the Government's earlier decision not to proceed with a National Trading Corporation.
There was certainly a lot of publicity about that. It is a good thing that it was dropped.
It will bring unfair competition to bear on existing export structures with potentially serious negative consequences on our overall agricultural trade performance. It is unnecessary as the agricultural support organizations in other countries, which CANAGREX is meant to correspond to, do not engage in direct exporting.
MISDIRECTED in that the basic issue in Canada's agricultural exports growth is totally ignored in the CANAGREX proposal.
Of course, people who are interested in agriculture know how the present Minister of Agriculture has suppressed agricultural production by his marketing board concept whenever he had the opportunity.
June 7, 1983

The Prime Minister has himself identified the crucial issue, that is our ability to supply internationally competitive priced products. The Government proposal for CANAGREX does not address this question.
When the Government, in the words of the Prime Minister, says we must "fight to keep the deficit in check", the above mentioned Associations believe that the Government then should not be committing public funds to an initiative of which the raison d'etre is so much in doubt. It must revise its position.
The Government has not relented nor has it revised its position in spite of some of the so-called amendments that the Minister of Agriculture has put forward. Those amendments are inconsequential.
For the sake of cooperation, so crucial to our agricultural export success, we would find it specially deplorable if the Government should choose to force this legislation through Parliament by means of the most drastic parliamentary measures. Because of the obvious serious opposition to CANAGREX by a very large proportion of those in Canada who would be affected by it, we urge the Government once again to recognize that the proposal is not adequately supported and to seek the means to achieve consensus through consultation along the lines advocated by the Prime Minister in recent public statements.
Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has departed from that policy. I see that you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to express my views, and 1 do hope that the Minister of Agriculture will give this matter a second thought.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate at the report stage of Bill C-85, the Canagrex Bill, because I am one of the first to recognize that we do not have, particularly in eastern Canada, the marketing mechanisms necessary to expand our export trade such as those in western Canada who are under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I should point out, however, that when this Bill was in committee, amendments were made to it to ensure that Canagrex could never get involved in food production. This in fact would squelch the unwarranted rumours circulated by Members of the Opposition who use this as a point of contention.
In addition to that, there have been amendments made so that Canagrex could not get involved in exporting except in coordination with, or at the request of, producers' groups, processors, manufacturers or individuals. I would like to point out that by looking at last year's exports of agricultural products and taking into consideration that in 1982 the exports of wheat went up by 15 per cent over 1981 and other agricultural products only went up by 2 per cent, that alone tells us that something is sadly lacking in the export of agricultural products from within Canada.
I must take issue with Members of the Official Opposition opposite who would deny Canadian farmers the right to have a voice in the exporting of their products entering world trade. I simply cannot believe that Members of the Official Opposition can suggest that the farmers do not have the knowledge or expertise necessary to work with processors in order to further their own potential as members of an exporting nation. They do have this knowledge and expertise, and to suggest otherwise, as does the Official Opposition, is certainly an insult to the intelligence of farmers across Canada.
Canagrex
I also must take issue with Members of the Official Opposition when they talk about Canagrex being another move toward socialism. Look at the list of Crown corporations within the Province of Alberta. The Government of Alberta owns half of the land, it owns the mineral rights, and it does not allow an individual to own his own mineral rights as is allowed in Ontario. The Government is directly involved in trust companies and various other areas, and the Government is directly involved in the exporting of agricultural products. I think that what we are asking for here, Mr. Speaker, will ensure that all farmers in Canada have the same vehicles available to them to expand their production and sell on the world markets as enjoyed by the farmers in western Canada.
Officials of one of the most productive counties in Ontario wrote to their Member of Parliament, a Member of the Official Opposition, and their letter ended by saying:
Sir-however you fell you must vote, when the vote comes, the farmers of Oxford want Canagrex and we want it now! No more fooling around.
That is laying the issue right on the table, Mr. Speaker, and I think we must ensure that this is the route we take. Particularly with the low prices being experienced on the commodity markets at the present time, Canagrex can serve as a vehicle to bring into focus the potential that there is in Canada's export markets and fill those markets.
Farmers from Ontario, from all of eastern Canada, from western Canada and all farmers who wish to become involved, members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, members from the National Farmers' Union, from various organizations, from the Ontario Tobacco Board, all support this legislation. In fact, the Ontario Tobacco Board lost a major sale recently because the legislation was not in place. The Horticulture Council, which spreads all the way from British Columbia through to the Maritimes, supports Canagrex and recognizes the need for it. These are all representative farm organizations across Canada whose members want to expand and utilize the potential that they have, a potential that has been bestowed upon them by Mother Nature and is not being utilized to its fullest capacity.
Only a small group within the agricultural sector is opposed to Canagrex. The vast majority of the groups are in favour of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. The Chair has listened attentively to the Hon. Member who now has the floor, and to previous speakers as well. I would like to indicate to the House that we are now at report stage. Remarks must be relevant to the subject matter at hand. We are, of course, at the stage of discussing proposed amendments, a grouping of a number of amendments, and I would invite all Hon. Members to relate their remarks to the amendments as they have been grouped. Report stage, if I may be permitted, is not an occasion to discuss the general principle of the Bill. This is usually done at

June 7, 1983
Canagrex
second reading stage or, again, at third reading stage. Therefore, I would seek the co-operation of Hon. Members in adhering to practice in this respect.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, 1 would be very pleased to discuss the amendments as proposed. I have already referred to the one which would ensure that Canagrex cannot become actively involved except in co-ordination with, or in co-operation with, an exporting organization, a company, a farm organization and so on.
Incidentally, I should point out that the official critic of the Official Opposition indicated that those amendments which we put forward as a Government at that time were acceptable to them, the Official Opposition. However, to remove those provisions would simply place Canagrex in the same position as a steer, perhaps, amid a bunch of heifers. It has to have that buy-sell provision if we are going to deal on a state to state basis with other countries, which are insisting on dealing this way because many of the products which are offered in the world markets are not of the quality which we want to see, and which we know we can produce.
In fact, when you look at the situation, particularly in the grain industry, various companies are allowed a 3 per cent tare. Quite often that tare percentage is added to the grain after it has been sold by the farmers. We want to ensure that the food products exported by Canagrex are top quality. We have the vehicle here to ensure long-term contracts, ensuring continuity of supply and a quality product. We have the vehicle in place to do this, but we need the bridge financing as provided for in the Canagrex legislation.
Many of our marketing boards would love to expand their production. It is that last 10 per cent of production which is the cheapest. Consequently, they can tie in to a long-term contractual arrangement with an offshore market. However, like the Canadian Wheat Board, which is able to sign up longterm contractual arrangements with other countries, we in the rest of Canada do not have that available to us. Consequently, it is absolutely essential that we have the buy-sell provision in the Canagrex legislation. To remove that, as has been suggested by the Opposition, would simply make Canagrex a vehicle to promote agriculture products with no real potential for tying up long-term contracts with other nations who so desperately need our food.
Another point is that we have provided for an audit in this legislation by the Auditor General, an audit which meets his criteria and one which is somewhat lacking in other Crown corporations. I would like to commend the Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party for bringing forward this amendment and for taking such an interest in the legislation as it came through committee. They certainly saw the need for this legislation. By providing that type of auditing procedure, we can be sure that the interests not only of the producer but of all of Canada, including the taxpayers, are represented.
I must point out also that in regard to the development of offshore markets with other nations, I have had it brought to my attention on various occasions that Canadians have not been aggressive enough in their sales to other countries except
for, perhaps, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission. We have not had continuity of aggressiveness towards promoting our own products. The existing system would tend to indicate that on the many occasions where we do have a temporary surplus of a product in Canada, it is offered to world markets at fire sale prices. There is no incentive there for the farmers themselves to gear up and supply a market, if they know they are only going to be able to sell at a time when they have a temporary surplus on hand. Therefore, there is no way that we can give those countries our assurances that we will always have lots of product to supply their needs.
I firmly support this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud to say that most of the major farm organizations in Ontario give us their unqualified support and are asking that this legislation be passed as quickly as possible.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, again, it is a sad moment for me in this House to rise and have to speak against a Bill which has been put upon us by closure. Not only that, it is the most blatant move to enforce state control which we have seen in the House. It is another erosion of our rights and freedoms, this time directed at the farmer.
Many farmers would no doubt welcome assistance from the Government in defining and developing export markets, as some of these amendments state. I would like to speak particularly to Motion No. 1. The farmers would welcome help for research and development in the agricultural industry totally. Government assistance in this respect makes a great deal of sense. It would be a laudable and sound concept, and this Bill purports that this is its intent. However, you will note, Mr. Speaker, that I used the phrase "Government assistance". The reason that many farmers and farm organizations and related groups across the country are opposed to Canagrex is that the concept behind the Bill is not Government assistance. It is another direct move towards Government interference, pure state control of agriculture.


Mr. Taylor:: Right on.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: In a meeting with two of my colleagues, many OFA representatives and county agricultural representatives, I am proud to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Garth Cubitt, the President of the Simcoe County Agricultural Association, had the foreseight to understand what this is all about, that it is state control, and to oppose it.
There are many fears over this Bill, the majority of them justified, given the previous track record of this Government. There is valid concern that the Government will be in direct competition with private companies. There is worry that Canagrex will venture into unprofitable areas for political purposes. And how many times have we seen this happen? There have been predictions of higher food prices for Canadians once the Government gets involved.
The many specific concerns related to this Bill are in Clause 1, Mr. Speaker. They have already been dealt with in detail by my colleagues in committee, and you have just heard two fine speeches by the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin)
June 7, 1983

and the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) on the subject. I will not dwell on the atmosphere resulting from the Bill. I will deal directly with Clause 1. There is apprehension and distrust which is well founded when you realize the broad and potentially dangerous scope of power proposed for this Corporation.
Of the many areas in this Bill which I could use to illustrate the questionable magnitude of these powers, I am particularly alarmed over the provisions in Clause 14(g), which allows Canagrex to:
(g) purchase, lease or otherwise acquire and hold real and personal property for actual use by Canagrex in the operation and management of its business-
If this Government wishes to create Canagrex as a tool to aid farm report, why in heaven's name does the Corporation need to own property and buy and sell property? Would its success in meddling in the finances of the farm be comparable to the post office and to Canadair? I would think so. Why does it have to set up its own farms to compete with those existing? Is it in conjunction with this Order in Council that we have had imposed upon us the establishment of internment camps, or are prison farms the next step? Is it maybe just to build office towers to house more Government bureaucrats in its Crown corporations?
How ironic it is that this particular Government wants to guarantee the rights of the Corporation to own property. It was this Government which flatly refused to make any reference to the property rights of Canadians when it patriated the Constitution and had the Charter of Rights proclaimed, and was the major reason I voted against it. Obviously this Government feels the right to own property is the prerogative of Government, not the people. Check the U.S.S.R. and Poland and see how they love it! The measures contained in this Bill were designed to reinforce that concept totally.
Beyond the immediate concerns regarding the structure and powers being assigned to the Canagrex Corporation in this Bill, there is an even more important and fundamental issue at stake, as listed in the amendments. What we are being asked to approve here is the creation of yet another Crown corporation, another intrusion by Government into the lives of Canadians, another definite move towards state control. Read the Auditor General's report. He classes the Crown corporations in existence now as sub-governments. I would love to know who those people across the way would like to put on top of the agricultural Crown corporation because that will be the real porkbarrel. They love Canadair and its $2.3 billion loss.
In my view, those in the agricultural community who have pledged their support to this Bill have not really understood its very basic implication. That is what this is all about. It is not whether you assist someone in buying or selling in our overseas markets; it is the state control of agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: How many Canadians in general realize just how far down the slippery slope to socialism we as a nation
Canagrex
have travelled? Not because we wanted to take the trip; we are on this path only because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) put us there. This Prime Minister firmly believes in state control and socialism. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, before he had the authority and power to implement his goal, he was writing his views on both, and I do not know why Members across the way do not read them. They are in black and white. Let us have a few quotes from this philosophy of the Prime Minister. He said it, not I:
-it seems to me that the regime of free enterprise has shown itself incapable of adequately resolving problems of contemporary society. That's why I am personally convinced that with the upheavals inherent in automation, cybernetics and nuclear energy, Liberal democracy will not long be able to satisfy our growing demands for justice and liberty-
I believe in the necessity of state control to maximize the liberty and welfare of all. The erroneous liberal idea of property helped to emancipate the bourgeoise, but is now hampering the march toward economic democracy.
He goes on:
1 should like to see socialists feeling free to espouse whatever political trends or to use whatever constitutional tools happen to fit each particular problem at each particular time.
That was said by the Prime Minister of Canada. The constitutional tools already available to him when he took over were obviously lacking, so he eventually managed to design new ones to suit his socialistic purposes. Closure. Making announcements outside this House and taking power away from Parliament.
The Bill before us provides the Government with an especially vital tool for the expansion of socialism: state control of production, food production in this instance, the staple of our existence. How much more control can you get? Look at what happened to Tanzania when they got state control of production. Look at Poland with the most arable land in the whole of Europe. They owe us $500 million for imports of wheat. Look at the Ukraine, once the bread basket of Europe, and at what happened to it when state control of agriculture came in. When you have state control, it ties up the means of production, controls economic freedom and that is when you lose your individual freedom.
That is what is at stake in this Bill. I say to the farmers who are in favour of this Bill: Please wake up before it is too late. The people under the control of such a state are known as slaves. They are dependent on state aid, and the greater the dependency the greater the power of the state to expand its control. We see that in communications, in industry, and now the Minister is trying to extend it to farming. The Prime Minister recognized the power inherent in such a dependency when he wrote:
Since the sum total of Governments is the sum total of powers, the first task of a socialist is to educate all of the people to demand maximum service from all their Governments.
That is what those people over there are trying to make the farmer think. Did your grandparents, Mr. Speaker, espouse this philosophy? You bet your sweet patootie they did not. Our grandfathers built this country, but they did not build one bit of it on socialism. Check the records. It was built on sweat and hard work. The people of this country are being educated in

June 7, 1983
Canagrex
the ways of socialism, and we would do well to ask the people of Russia, Cuba or China how they benefit from such an education. The creation of another Crown corporation such as Canagrex simply expands the concept of state control and socialism. That is a dangerous and destructive concept.
I see you are waving at me, Mr. Speaker, so I will conclude by simply saying this. Through its embrace of and dedication to socialism, this Government has created very grave problems for Canada and this is the latest and worst of them. Socialism in the hands of this Prime Minister has taken on a new form and meaning. It has, as this Bill amply demonstrates, become nothing less than communization. I am convinced, and with good reason, that the Prime Minister, given his way, would turn this nation into a huge organized commune in which every single aspect of our lives would be controlled by Government.


Ralph Ferguson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the rule of relevance be applied here and that we get back to the amendments, please.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are the last one to be referring to that.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What is relevant to you may not be relevant to me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) on the same point of order.


Mr. Neil:: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a series of amendments, the first of which changes the concept of this Bill. It seems to me that if we are to deal properly with the first amendment, plus the others grouped with it, we have to have a wide scope to speak on the subject matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Chair thanks Hon. Members for their contributions to the procedural matter. As a matter of fact, the time allocated to the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) had in fact expired and the Chair had proposed to rise at that point so as not to interrupt the Hon. Member in his remarks to refer Hon. Members to procedural paper No. 2, dealing with rules respecting repetition and relevance in debate. I would like to quote the following paragraph:
Motions which are amendments to change, to delete or to restore clauses in the bill can be moved and debated at this stage.
I am referring to report stage. It goes on:
To avoid excessive repetition of debate, the Speaker has the power to select and to combine motions and amendments.
This was done previously as Hon. Members know. It goes on:
Also, the Speaker can control debate through use of irrelevancy rule as applied to debate on clauses of a bill. Despite the resemblance of debate at report stage to that at committee stage, there is no allowance in the Standing Orders of the House for a wide-ranging discussion of a bill as occurs by practice in committee on study of clause 1.
When the Hon. Member for Simcoe South rose to make his speech, he said specifically that he would address his remarks to Clause 1 of the Bill. The Chair waited with some patience, I may say, for the Hon. Member to speak with some greater relevance to the amendments at hand. Along the way the Hon.
Member did touch on some of the general contents of those amendments.
Because of the large grouping of amendments, it is, of course, rather difficult for the Chair to determine on the spot if a Member is speaking to any one of the more than half a dozen amendments we are now debating together. Therefore, I would invite Hon. Members to make as much as possible a determined effort to relate their remarks to the specific amendments now before the House. Otherwise the Chair will have no other choice but to invite Hon. Members to relate their remarks in fact to those amendments.
Taking into account, as I have just said, that the amendments are numerous but in a sense are all related to each other, hopefully we will be able to make progress in the debate.
The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) rises on a point of order?


Mr. Skelly:: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am pursuing the matter of relevance. I can see that it will be a problem throughout the day in that in Beauchesne's Citation 102 there is the indication that the question of relevance must address the question of rationality. I believe that any intelligent examination of the remarks of the Hon. Member who spoke previously would indicate that the speech was absolutely irrational. Therefore, I feel that he was not relevant in what he was dealing with in the matter. He should probably have been ruled out of order immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I thank the Hon. Member but, of course, that is a matter of opinion. The Chair has wide discretion in the exercise of its judgment. I am attempting to do an objective job of assessing, if I may use that term, Hon. Members' remarks as they relate to the matter at hand. It is not an easy task, mind you, especially in the context of today's debate.
I now recognize the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw for debate.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the concern of my friends to the left with respect to some of the remarks which have been made here this morning. It is hitting home, I think, and it is an indication as to how closely allied they are with the Government, which is attempting to put forward a Bill that is entirely in keeping with the philosophy of those on my left.
It is a sad day for Canada, as the Hon. Member who spoke previously said. We are faced here with a Bill restricted to two days of debate by a motion of closure, two days of debate which cover not only the third reading stage but also the second reading stage. We are faced with some ten or 12 substantial amendments to the Bill. We as Members should have been given the opportunity to spend a considerable amount of time on these amendments.
June 7, 1983

I voiced my concern about the Bill on second reading and in committee. I pointed out, as forcefully as I could, the dangers inherent in the Bill because it gives the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Government the potential of complete control, not only of production of agricultural products but of the food chain as well.
It is a further extension of the Government's social philosophy which has crept in since the Party opposite was taken over by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), a Prime Minister whose background and writings have dedicated him to socialism, Marxism and all the other "isms" which exist.


Mr. Smith:: That is absolute garbage.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: He has written it down. Read it.


Douglas Charles Neil: Obviously, the Hon. Member on the other side has not taken the time to read some of the writings of his Leader.


David P. Smith: I have read them. By their deeds ye shall know them.


Douglas Charles Neil: I am sure that if he had read them, then he would understand what is happening to his Party and what is happening to the country. If he says that he has read them, then obviously he has not understood them.


David P. Smith: Oh, I did both.


Mr. Thacker:: Or else he agrees.


Mr. Huntington:: He supports him.


Douglas Charles Neil: It is interesting that when the Bill was in committee and Members of the Official Opposition were proposing to remove a number of clauses, buy and sell, joint ventures and so on, we attempted to bring in as witnesses senior officials from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and from the Department of External Affairs who have been involved over the years in the type of promotion which the Bill authorizes. I moved a motion in committee that these witnesses appear before the committee, but it was voted down by the Government Members.
I am wondering what will happen if the Bill passes, as it undoubtedly will because of the Government majority and the support of the NDP. What will happen to the agricultural arm of IT&C which is out in the world trying to sell our goods, and what will happen to the agricultural representatives of the Department of External Affairs? Surely the whole aspect should have been examined to determine whether or not the Bill was necessary or whether or not IT&C and the Department of External Affairs should have been given additional powers to carry out the functions of which the Minister speaks.
However, it seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture is interested in power. He wants control, control of the production of agricultural products and control of the food chain. Otherwise, why would he include buy and sell clauses? Why would he include joint ventures? He says: "All I want is a window on the industry". We know what a window on the industry is. The Bill is wide enough that the Minister of
Canagrex
Agriculture or Canagrex could end up putting quotas on various agricultural products. We would have a situation where the producer could no longer make the decision as to what products he would produce in a particular year or how he would sell them, except through this organization which has such sweeping powers.


Mr. Whelan:: You know that is nonsense.


Douglas Charles Neil: The Minister says that it is nonsense. We asked the Minister in committee and on numerous other occasions, if what we are speaking about is nonsense, why he leaves these clauses in the Bill. The Minister said on several occasions that he had no intention of exercising many of the powers contained in the Bill.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Why put them in the Bill?


Douglas Charles Neil: We said that if he does not intend to exercise these powers, he should remove them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: What did he say? He said: "Some of the Provinces have legislation with similar types of clauses".


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The Prime Minister won't let him.


Douglas Charles Neil: We do not care what the Provinces have. We are concerned about the Bill, the country and the agricultural industry.


Eugene Whelan: There are no such powers in that Bill that you claim there are, no such powers.


Douglas Charles Neil: The Minister is repeating, like a broken record, the things he said over the years, not only in committee but in public as well.


Eugene Whelan: Just state the facts as they are, that's all.


Douglas Charles Neil: I am fast running out of time, and if there are any more interventions by Hon. Members on the other side, I will run out of time. However, I would like to suggest that one of the serious flaws in the Bill is the fact that Canagrex could operate on a regional basis. It could divide the country even more than it is divided today, because if Canagrex went offshore and found markets, it would be faced with the situation where the Minister or Canagrex would have to make a decision as to whether or not such a contract went to eastern Canada, western Canada, the Maritimes or wherever. That would be quite a chore.
Take, for example, the pork producer. Supposing the Minister went offshore and obtained a contract for the sale of pork. We have pork producers in Quebec, in Ontario and in western Canada. Who would receive the contract? Would the Minister or Canagrex make the decision and say: "Oh, this contract goes here, into a certain area, because they are having a few more problems than us", or perhaps because there were more votes in that particular area?

June 7, 1983
Canagrex


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, on a point of order.


Marcel Dionne: Mr. Speaker, would my colleague opposite agree to being asked a question at this point?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: A question could only be asked at this time with the Hon. Member's consent.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, if these were 20-minute speeches, I would be very happy to accept a question; but because of the limited time, I do not feel that I have time. I will answer his question personally afterwards, if he so desires, but I only have about one and one half minutes left. If I have any little bit of time left, I might entertain a question.
I might say in closing that the amendments with which we are dealing today are ones which will make the Bill palatable to the majority of agricultural groups and producers in Canada. As the Bill exists at the present time, without these amendments well over half of the witnesses who appeared before us opposed the Bill in its present form. The majority of people have no objection to giving Conagrex, IT&C or the Department of External Affairs the power to promote and facilitate the export of agricultural products. However, they are absolutely opposed to the powers which are in the Bill to take complete control of agriculture.
If there is any time left, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to entertain a question from the Hon. Member.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Dionne) rising to ask a question?


Marcel Dionne: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know whether big corporations like CN, CP and the Canadian Wheat Board that were established by the Progressive Conservative Party-I would like to know whether my colleague opposite means that the Canadian Wheat Board, which has the power to purchase and sell agricultural products, should have those powers withdrawn.


Douglas Charles Neil: I am not saying that at all, Mr. Speaker. The Wheat Board is dealing in a different type of commodity. The commodity with which it deals is traded on the world market.


David P. Smith: What's the difference?


Douglas Charles Neil: The production of wheat, oats and barley, with which the Wheat Board deals, is concentrated in the West, in the Wheat Board area, and there is no possibility of playing off the East against the West by the Wheat Board, as there is in the Bill.
[ Translation]


Marcel Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. That is subject to the unanimous consent of the House.

Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to ask another question?


Some Hon. Members:: No.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is no unanimous consent.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendments to the Canagrex Bill, Bill C-85, amendments which have been proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party to take away the buy and sell provisions in the original legislation. I find that we in this corner of the House will not be able to support that sort of amendment.
This particular aspect of the Bill was discussed quite broadly in committee, but apparently not broadly enough for Hon. Members of the Official Opposition to comprehend what it takes to complete a sale. This seems a little hard to believe, considering that they claim to be members of a free enterprise Party and to have a full and complete understanding of the workings of the market. It is perhaps ironic that a democratic socialist like myself will have to explain to them how one goes about completing a sale, how one goes about making a market function and how one goes about making an agency like Canagrex one which will be of some use to the farmers of Canada.
There are a number of basic routes from production to the final market through which any commodity goes. Farmers know how to do the production. Usually they have no trouble arranging transportation. Usually we can do some of the processing in Canada which is required before the commodity is sold to the consumer who wants the final product, although there are sometimes difficulties involved in the storage and handling of some of the products which are perishable. However, it is the movement, the selling and the completing of the sale, the little details of ensuring and amassing enough product to attract the attention of foreign buyers, which is usually the aspect which farmers do not have the time, money or expertise to complete.
A number of the Provinces recognized that fact and set up agencies very similar to Canagrex in order to complete sales to foreign markets. In fact, seven of the ten provincial Governments in this country have set up agencies and marketing institutions similar to Canagrex. My own Province of Saskatchewan has had such an agency for about ten years. My neighbouring Province, Alberta, had one of the first, complete with all of the powers found in Canagrex, plus a few more.


Eugene Whelan: 
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No, it was introduced by a Progressive Conservative Government, with virtually no debate in the provincial House, basically by cabinet fiat. There has never been any screaming or yelling from the Tories in the House, saying that this is a big Government grab.
The agency in Alberta has all of the powers of Canagrex. I would like to just read a couple of sections with regard to the purchase of goods, setting out some of the powers of the Alberta Export Agency, as follows:
When necessary, the Agency would purchase goods from the Producer/Proces-sor for resale and thereby become the "exporter of record".
The section entitled "Take Title" sets out what is involved when the Agency buys and sells as follows:
The Agency would, when deemed advisable, take delivery of, and title to, goods in progress, et cetera and provide storage or inventory facilities until completion, shipment and collection of funds.
It is very clearly taking possession of the goods, and buying and selling.


Eugene Whelan: If a Conservative does it, it's free enterprise. If anything else does it, it's socialism.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: How is it sold?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I find that one of the other provincial agencies has a section concerning buying and selling which is probably the epitome of Tory rhetoric. A section in the Prince Edward Island Market Development Centre Act sets out one of its powers as follows:
-to carry on any other business which may seem to the directors of the Corporation capable of being conveniently carried on in conjunction with the attainment of the objects of the Corporation or calculated directly or indirectly to enhance the value or render profitable any of the Corporation's property or rights, and to co-operate in, aid in, subscribe to or subsidize any proceedings or undertaking which may seem to the directors calculated directly or indirectly to benefit the Corporation;-
It continues as follows:
-to acquire or obtain from any Government or authority in Prince Edward Island or elsewhere or from any Corporation or person any charter, contract, decree, rights, privileges and concessions which my be deemed conducive to any of the objects of the Corporations and to accept, make payments under, carry out, exercise and comply with any such charter, contract, decree, rights, privileges and concessions;
-to do all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects or any of them.
The Conservatives are correct. It does not include buy and sell. It has gone about obtaining those same rights and provisions by writing in a bunch of legal gobbledygook which gives the very same powers. It goes beyond that, in fact. Therefore, I think there are plenty of precedents by Conservative Governments and other Governments in this country, which understand that the power to buy and sell must be in this kind of legislation.
I go on to cite my own experience before I came to this place. One of the things that I did for a while was to help set up a hog marketing commission in Saskatchewan. In one of the preliminaries, I was on short-term contract to the provincial Department of Agriculture and in that role occasionally held meetings with potential buyers of pork from Japan. As
Canagrex
marketing specialists at the time, we would sit down and carry on discussions to find out how much product the Japanese wanted, what price they were willing to pay and under what terms and conditions shipment would be made. When it came down to it, we would never complete a contract, for the very simple reason that we could not sign on the dotted line and complete the sale.
A few months later I was part of the Saskatchewan Hog Commission which had the power to complete such sales. Those discussions went very well and we completed the sales without any problem. The point is that we had to be able to complete the sales or else the potential buyers were not interested in talking to us. We heard this in committee in presentations by the Canada-Alberta All Breeds Association.
To be fair, the All Breeds Association said they did not want Canagrex. I suppose they do not really need it since they have all of the same powers operating under provincial legislation. However, they told us the same story. When they first started operating in international markets they completed very few sales because their mandate did not include buying and selling. As soon as they were granted the authority to buy and sell and complete deals, their business soared. Their business was into the millions of dollars almost overnight simply because they had the power to buy and sell, complete a deal and deal directly with the potential buyer.
We revised this Bill in a number of key areas when it first went to committee. We made it very clear in committee that the agency Canagrex cannot go into the production of agricultural products on its own account. The only way it can get products is by agreement with a producer or processor who holds the product. This is the same procedure as any other corporation operating in the free market in Canada. The powers of Canagrex are no greater than any other public corporation operating in this country.
We feel that Canagrex is necessary since there are a number of farm commodity groups scattered across several Provinces which have no ability to combine their products to form a large enough package to attract buyers under any other type of legislation. Since it cannot come under provincial legislation it must be done under federal legislation, and that is why we support Canagrex at this time.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have risen twice in the House to speak to this Bill, once at second reading and once at closure, to point out the dangers of this legislation.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Every Member on the other side who has risen has mentioned closure. This is not closure; it is time allocation. It is used in the Mother of Parliament all of the time in Britain. They keep using the terminology "closure". After 85 hours of debate in the House and committee, it is not a form of closure.

June 7, 1983
Canagrex


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I rise to point out that it is not a point of order. The Minister is simply being argumentative. On every agricultural bill of any consequence to Canada, or to western Canada in particular, the Minister is tring to curtail debate because he is afraid of the issues. That is why he rises.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The point raised initially by the Hon. Minister is not a point of order. Members may interpret or give other names to particular items in the rules as they wish, but that is not for the Chair to interfere with at this time.
The Hon. Minister of Agriculture indicates he wishes to rise on another point of order.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has made the comment that in every instance when there is legislation before the House I try to curtail debate. That is far, far from the truth and he knows it.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: What did you do on the Crow?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: After eight hours of debate you put closure on it.


Eugene Whelan: The Mother of Parliament does the same thing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The matter raised by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture is debate and not a point of order.
I recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council on another point of order.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I simply rise to set the record straight. On page 30 of the new Standing Orders, the Standing Orders themselves identify Standing Order 37 as closure. We are not operating under that rule. The Minister of Agriculture is correct that this is time allocation and not closure, which is clearly identified as Rule 37 in the Standing Orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I presume time is of the essence. The Chair certainly does not intend to interfere with the names that Hon. Members want to give to a particular point in our rules, procedures or precedents. If an Hon. Member wants to call my mother-in-law by any other name, that is the Hon. Member's privilege. I would invite Hon. Members to continue with the debate. However, the Hon. Member for Capilano did rise on a point of order.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, with respect to that scurrilous non-point of order raised by the Minister of Agriculture, I would draw to the Chair's attention that four minutes of the time allotted to the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) has been used and I suggest that that time be added to his ten-minute speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The point raised by the Hon. Member for Capilano is well taken, and the Chair will exercise its usual discretion. The Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize the Minister would get so exercised when I rose to speak, but any time a motion is moved in the House that curtails my right to speak on every one of these substantial amendments that were made to the Bill, I call it closure on debate. Time allocation is just a nice way of putting it. It is in fact closure.
As Members on this side have already pointed out, when the Minister becomes disturbed about the various aspects of this Bill he is very quick to rise in an attempt to defend the indefensible. Let us review the last ten months with respect to closure motions. The only two times that the Minister has risen in the House to enter into the debate was to move closure- once on Canagrex and once on the Crow rate. Both those measures have a substantial effect in western Canada where the Government has no Members.
Why is he doing this? He knows very well that he cannot stand the heat of debate on both of those issues in western Canada. Therefore his solution is to close the debate before Members in the House have the right to put forward their debate or before the various commodity and other groups in the western Provinces, including the Premiers and their Cabinets, have a chance to speak on this legislation.
Let us see what the Minister has done since 1972. The Minister has only taken one new initiative in the House of Commons. That is the meat import law. Every other time he has risen in the House it has been to amend good legislation which has been brought forward by other Governments. When he did rise on two new issues in the last ten months, the purpose on both occasions was to move a motion of time allocation.
At a time when there are tens of hundreds of farms in this country going out of business, we are debating in the House two Bills that will not assist them in any way. This Bill in particular will not assist them in any way to become more viable in the country. Powers in this Bill already exist in other legislation which could provide the same type of opportunities for agriculture in this country. They exist in IT&C, the Commercial Trading Corporation and the foreign service.
If this Bill is passed, will the private trading corporations in this country have the same opportunities to carry out the good work that they have been doing in the past on behalf of farmers? Will the marketing boards in this country, whether or not they are supply management, have the same opportunity to provide these types of trading services for farmers that they have in the past? The answer obviously has to be no.
The Minister was pressed in committee to answer why he wishes to have the powers that are contained in Clause 14. Today we are debating Motions 6, 7, 8 and 9 which I put on the Order Paper and which will remove the powers to buy and sell from this corporation. At least 50 organizations mainly from western Canada have disapproved of Clause 14 and have stated so on the record in committee. Many other national corporations have said the same thing. They have asked the
June 7, 1983

Minister why we need the excessive powers in Clause 14. They include such powers as to purchase agricultural products and food products and to package, process, store, ship, insure, import, export or sell or otherwise dispose of products purchased by Canagrex. Its powers include being able to enter into contracts with Canadian companies, co-operatives and marketing boards, but the Minister says only in joint ventures. However, if any farm or co-operative is in financial trouble, it is very easy to put out the hand of Government and get involved in a joint venture.
It has the power to purchase and lease property as it wishes in the operation and management of its business, to pledge, mortgage, hypothecate, sell, lease or otherwise deal with and dispose of personal property and sell and otherwise dispose of real property. These powers go on for three pages in the Bill.
Those are the powers that the majority of Canadian agriculture is saying it does not accept or want. Canadian agriculture says it has no objection to the promotion of agricultural products or to the facilitation of the export of agricultural products, or to the desire of many agricultural product boards in this country to have some export credit. To have some export credit is essential in order to compete in today's world. Many other countries have those powers and are using them. There is no objection to that.
If we were to spend this $12 million and the $75 million in credit which the corporation has to assist private ventures in this country, to assist marketing boards which have been set up and which have the facilities to do this job, to assist our foreign trade service in putting in place agricultural exports people around the world, there would be no objections from any person in this country.
Take a look at what Japan has done. Its trading company does not have these powers yet it is one of the most successful in the world. The Japanese have at least 80,000 persons worldwide trading in their various products. They assist various private corporations around the world. Japan's trading company has no powers to buy and sell. It has no powers to store or otherwise get involved in the private production of products in Japan. The trading company is out there to facilitate exports.
Often in committee the Minister raised the matter of what other countries are doing. I looked into that matter. Only one of those countries, the totally socialist country of Israel under Agrexco, has the powers that are in this Bill.
Other socialist countries such as Denmark do not have these powers. Denmark has trading corporations and they do exactly what I have been talking about except for having those powers. Let us take a look at Germany. It has a very successful agricultural trading board, a non-profit organization. It lobbies for exports and imports. It handles legal issues. It is involved in food and drug regulations.lt advertises and promotes imported and exported German products directly to consumers. Nowhere does this German marketing board have the power to buy and sell.
Canagrex
I can go on and mention Mexico, France, Britain-


Eugene Whelan: The Danish Hog Marketing Board?


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: -and Australia. They all have very viable and successful trading corporations, none of which has the power to buy and sell.
I do not believe in the arguments which the Minister has put forward. He said in committee that without the buy and sell provisions this corporation, Canagrex, will be as useless as-he used another term but I will use the term mammary glands on a boar. If he is saying that, then he is saying that all these other very successful trading corporations in the world are failures. Well, they run circles around what we have been able to do. They do not need the powers that are in Bill C-85 to do so. If the Minister would remove that particular section, there would be no objections. The motions which I have put on the Order Paper deal with that. If the Minister removed those sections, there would be no objections from anyone in this country regarding this Bill and we could get on with the excellent work that is necessary to make trade viable.
The real point and the point which many Canadians are getting fed up with is the creation of more Crown corporations, of which this is one. It is just like Petro-Canada. My colleague the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) will be raising a very important issue as to what happens when you create Crown corporations, how these Crown corporations spend their time building bureaucracies and subsidiaries until they use the powers granted by legislation in the House. We are coming to the point where we, as Members of Parliament, recognize the dangers of allowing the Governor in Council the right to do certain things, to put powers in Bills beyond their real need to function properly. Crown corporations do not have to worry about making profits. They do not have to worry about going bankrupt. They do not have to worry about initiative and incentive because the taxpayer, through this Government over the past ten or twelve years, has continually funded them. Look at what has happened to Canadair, which is a recent example. That is why it is dangerous. That is why private corporations across Canada which have traded excellently in the agriculture industry are frightened for their security. I do not blame them.
We could do the same things by adding these funds to the Export Development Corporation or to the Commercial Development Corporation, expanding our foreign trade service, giving our various private companies and marketing boards the power to use export credit. With those functions we have no need whatsoever for this Bill called Canagrex.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Well spoken.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Translation}


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of Bill C-85 and the motions before the House at the present time, I am rather surprised at the comments made by

June 7, 1983
Canagrex
my colleagues opposite, who are saying we do not need the Canagrex Bill, that everything it is meant to do can be done quite easily by the private sector and that this kind of corporation is useless.
Mr. Speaker, I am indeed surprised, especially since I know that representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have been asking very regularly about Bill C-85, in papers they send to us, in their own publications and in those published in Eastern Canada, particularly in Quebec, such as Terre de Chez-Nous, where they wonder what is happening to Bill C-85.
Mr. Speaker, last fall, in November, to be precise, we met with representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and I know that the Federation was also supposed to meet Members of the Official Opposition, and, I imagine, Members of the New Democratic Party as well. The Federation, which is a national body, was anxious to see the Canagrex Bill passed and implemented to help promote and export our agricultural and food products. I am surprised to hear Members of the Official Opposition tell us that this is unnecessary. I am also surprised to hear that this might trigger a war between the West and the East. I am also surprised to see, considering the amendments that have been moved, that their official agricultural critic is not even in the House. I am also very surprised that now we have examined this Bill in committee, in terms of the various amendments, after motions had been moved to delay the proceedings, and so forth, that now they are telling us, after so many hours of debate, that there has not been sufficient debate on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I am astonished at this attitude, and I think that, in view of the Government's intention to see to it that this Corporation, which would have the power to facilitate and promote exports of agricultural products, meets with the approval of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Canada has a duty to establish an export mechanism if it is to remain competitive with other countries that are taking concrete measures to extend their export markets for agricultural products. That is the kind of mechanism that is being urgently requested by our country's agricultural organizations.
Our competitors have already taken steps to increase their exports of agri-food products, and I am thinking of our neighbours to the South, the United States. The Americans have a number of organizations, including the Foreign Agriculture Service, the Co-operative Program, the Commodity Credit Corporation with its various credit programs such as Public Law 480, to improve their agri-food exports, which have already earned the U.S. over $36 billion. As far as our agriculture is concerned, we are in a position to take a different approach, while helping to promote our products abroad, and with Canagrex, we shall be serving the interests of all Canadians and especially Canadian farmers.
This example shows what priority is given by countries such as the United States to the agri-food export trade. Motion No. 1 aims at removing the word "engage in". It seems to me that its move simply wants to dilute the provisions of the Bill. That is also the purpose of the other amendments being considered today, even though this Bill would effectively allow us to do as other countries have done by giving proper priority to our agricultural and food product export trade. Other countries have in fact already done this, including France, Denmark, Great Britain, Germany, Israel and Mexico, by setting up the required mechanisms to maximize the development of their export markets.
The powers conferred to farm product sales promotion agencies in the United States allow them to take a judicious and flexible approach aimed at increasing their export markets. Why should Canada, which is so close to the United States, not be able to take advantage of this situation and use the same type of system to export our agri-food products? Thanks to the agricultural policies applied by the Canadian government for the past several years, this sector of the economy has been very stable in spite of the present recession and must be further supported in order to develop. Why is this? Thanks to the various governments, to the people involved and to farm organizations, we have been able to stimulate production, increase our purchasing power and develop our export capacity. In my opinion, this is extremely important for Canadian agriculture, and indeed, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has recognized this fact and has asked that this Bill be promoted and passed.
Thus, the powers granted to farm product sales promotion agencies in other countries such as the United States provide for a judicious and flexible approach aimed at conquering export markets. It is also very interesting to note that the industry is trying to secure more powers.
In addition, many circles are in favour of a better coordination of activities and much pressure is brought to bear in order to have the Export Trading Act passed, which would provide for the creation of export trading companies similar to the Japanese giants which look after every aspect of the export trade. This is what we must do, Mr. Speaker, we must act.
In other words, Canada will have to face an increasingly stronger competition on the international markets and we must act now if we do not want to be left behind. Some people suggest that Canagrex will be different from agri-food export development programs now existing in other countries. Nothing can be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. Our competitors do not compete with other sectors in their own country, but rather with other countries. They have set up agencies which promote sales to foreign buyers in order to maximize the sales of their products.
June 7, 1983

This is exactly what Canagrex will do, i.e. it will act as a facilitating agent and promote, through its members as described in Bill C-85, the quick sale of Canadian agricultural and food products on the export markets. Therefore, when we look at the title, from which Motion No. 1 seeks to strike out the words "engage in", I feel this would be unfairly diluting the terms of reference of Canagrex.
In order to illustrate the current situation of Canadian agrifood exports in some sectors, it is interesting to look at the comments made by Mr. William Jenkins, a former Dean of the Nova Scotia College of Agriculture, in an interview last year, and I quote:
In the Atlantic Provinces, the export of agricultural products is nothing short of a war. It is every man for himself, a very crude way to sell anything ... It practically amounts to chaos.
Canadian agriculture cannot afford such a situation. Some degree of co-ordination is needed, and, in my view, Bill C-85, with the establishment of Canagrex would help bring us back to a most sensible situation. When we look at what other countries are doing to prevent such a war, we cannot but realize the importance of making Canada competitive on the export markets.
We must therefore get our act together and pass this Bill without delay, and this is why we have asked for a time allocation for the consideration of the Bill. Hon. Members opposite refer to closure. Mr. Speaker, concerning the current situation, when a Bill has gone through all the stages, first and second reading and study in Committee, when we read all the amendments or motions to emphasize that this or that individual has not been in attendance, people who had not even wanted to appear, the Official Opposition having requested it stating they wanted to hear such and such a group that had not even been summoned to appear before the Committee, they simply wanted to delay consideration of the Bill, it is my view that today, when we speak of time allocation, if my colleague will speak of closure, he is quite free to do it if he so wishes, but my view is that we have taken up enough time, and since the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is anxious to have the Bill, we must respect the wishes of our farmers and we will do so, Mr. Speaker, by passing the Bill, especially since, as I said, farm organizations across Canada are asking for it.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-85, to establish a corporation called Canagrex. In my ten minutes I would like to focus on Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the name of the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), who was the last speaker from this side of the House. He spoke in a very informed and eloquent manner regarding the offending principle in the Bill. The Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin, representing a farming community, understands very well the impact of Subclause 14(l)(a) on the farming community. It indicates that Cangrex would be empowered to:
Canagrex
-purchase agricultural products and food products and package, process, store, ship, insure, import, export or sell or otherwise dispose of products purchased by
it;-
That is the offending principle because it empowers Cangrex to buy and sell.
It is clear to a growing number of Canadians that the Government has embarked upon a strategy to control major sectors of the economy. If I were to put it in more ideological terms, it would be to establish state control over the major means of production. That is at the heart of it. It has been moving into sector after sector to establish Government control.
Let me illustrate. It seems that the Government is using a strategy to create a sense of dependency upon the Government in each sector of the economy, largely through the use of a state of continual economic anxiety. I would like to illustrate that further by the use of another metaphor. Hon. Members will recall that during and after the Korean War there was a new phenomenon known as brainwashing. 1 am not talking about brainwashing here but about the technique the Koreans used which was new to the western mind.


Eugene Whelan: What does that have to do with the Bill?


Benno Friesen: If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will listen, I will explain it to him.


Mr. Mayer:: Show him in pictures.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is something wrong with the sound.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Hon. Members are obviously annoyed by the extraneous noise. I presume someone is drilling through the roof or the walls; however, we are having the matter checked. For now I invite the Hon. Member to continue his remarks.


Benno Friesen: I was indicating that that new phenomenon used a technique of continued long periods of anxiety to create an attitude of instability and insecurity, by which they were then able to do anything they wanted with those prisoners. I suggest to the Minister and to Hon. Members of the House that that kind of technique has been used in successive industrial sectors of the economy, whereby the Government maintained an atmosphere of insecurity and by that atmosphere of insecurity then manipulated an industry or a sector to do anything the Government wanted it to do.
Let me illustrate. In the industrial sector, notice the grant system which has become so very popular and the dependency that has been created on the federal Government through the grant system. The textile industry, which years ago should have been rationalized into a major industrial shift, considering all of the industrial strategies of Canada and around the world, should have been taken into consideration. Rather than that, the Government through the grand system keeps the textile industry in a state of anxiety. The same is true of the shoe industry and the forest industry. As soon as you invoke a

June 7, 1983
Canagrex
system of grants to any sector of the economy, you create a dependency on the Government and an atmosphere of insecurity which makes that sector vulnerable.
Second, we have the energy field, the second sector of the economy which the Government by design is taking into an area of state control through a system of overtaxation, grants and other mediums. The direct control of exploration and development of resources is not now a matter of the magic of the marketplace but a matter of the National Energy Program and PetroCan. Members will recall that originally Petro-Canada was set up to be only a window on the industry. Some window! It is now a major determinant of the energy direction of Canada as far as the Government is concerned. What we find so offensive is that PetroCan is not a window on the industry, but is in a privileged position in the industry. The Government directs its energy policy through that Government corporation. It is not simply that there are a few PetroCan stations across Canada, but that it now has a privileged position in the industry. Through the back-in provisions, all of the other companies are held in servitude to that one Government corporation.
This brings me to Canagrex. We have the same principle being invoked in this Government corporation. Whereas it was the grant system in the obsolescent industries in Canada and the grant and back-in provisions in the energy field, we now have the buy and sell provisions. They will give the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) through Order in Council or any provision control of the food industry in Canada.


Eugene Whelan: That is nonsense and you know it.


Benno Friesen: The Minister had the chance to introduce the Bill. He mumbled throughout the speech of the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). He is now intervening when I am speaking. He will have a chance to wrap up the comments on this Bill. Let him wait until then.
Bill C-85 is not an innocent or innocuous support for an ailing industry.


Eugene Whelan: Just nonsense.


Benno Friesen: I know it is too much to ask the Minister of Agriculture to keep his mouth shut.


Eugene Whelan: Tell your colleagues to be quiet.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Now you have the Speaker up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Yes. It is the Speaker's duty to protect the right of the Member who has the floor. I invite Hon. Members to co-operate with the Chair.


Eugene Whelan: Tell them to be quiet too.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If the shoe fits, it is a size 15.


Benno Friesen: As I was saying before I was interrupted by the Minister of Agriculture, Bill C-85, Canagrex, is not an innocent or innocuous support system for an ailing industry. It is the beginning of a major intervention in the most vulnerable
industry in our country. Members have enough agricultural roots to know that the farmer has enough to do to cope with the vicissitudes of nature. Witness what is happening in southern Ontario this year where the farmers cannot get into the fields to plant their crops.


Eugene Whelan: I suppose that is my fault.


Benno Friesen: That is a major problem which the farmers face. Now they are being asked to cope with the vicissitudes and whims of a bureaucracy. It is the magic of the marketplace which makes any industry function. We used to think about the threat of the dictatorship of the proletariat and about all those other ideological terms. I am convinced that the dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer the major threat. We are now facing the dictatorship of the bureaucracy.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We should remind ourselves what the Bill is about. They talk about what my Bill is doing and what the Minister is doing. I have some rights as a Member of Parliament. The Member should say who started Crown corporations. It was the Conservative Government that set up the CNR, the CBC, other huge corporations such as the Canadian Wheat Board. Is he saying that is bad? The Wheat Board was started in 1935 by a Tory Government.


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


Benno Friesen: If the enlightened comments of the Minister of Agriculture were worth responding to, I would take the time, but they seldom are. This reminds me of the former Right Hon. Member for Prince Albert who used to say he read all of the Minister's speeches, sometimes for information but mostly for amusement. That is generally the category in which his remarks fall.


Eugene Whelan: We know what your Party did to him.


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


Benno Friesen: We are facing the intrusion of bureaucratic control into a very vulnerable industry. As my friend for Wetaskiwin pointed out, even those countries which have elected bona fide socialist Governments-we have a socialist Government which does not call itself by that name-have not included in their corporations relating to agriculture these buy and sell provisions. What we face is the opportunity for Government corporations to move into the food sections of every urban area. They will build stores. This is why the Consumers' Association is opposed to it. They will build retail outlets to package and sell and they will be major competitors in the food industry.
That is why we are so opposed to this legislation. It is because the Government is disturbing the marketplace. It is not allowing farmers to be what they are, the most productive people in the country. That is why we will oppose this legislation right to the very end.
June 7, 1983


Mr. Roy:: May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the House disposed to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Roy) has the floor.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I consider it somewhat a privilege to be able to rise in the House today to deal with a legislation which will very significantly affect the future of Canadian farmers. Moreover, before coming to this place, I had been involved for 12 years in agriculture at both the private enterprise and co-operative levels. Thanks to my expertise, I feel I am in a position to understand both points of view, namely that of private enterprise as well as the view of the co-operative enterprise. I have been a member of Parliament for the past 15 years, and the remarks I have heard today remind me of the times-I think you were sitting on the Standing Committee on Agriculture then, Mr. Speaker-when we had to deal with the legislation establishing farm product marketing agencies. We hear again today the same whining we heard then while trying to set up farm product marketing agencies and to make sure farmers had stable incomes more in line with their production costs. The Tories' moaning is exactly the same as before, as you can ascertain from reading the official record of the times. Even after 13 years, they are raising the same issues.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House on a Bill passed in the early days of the session. I refer to Bill C-4 respecting grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes. Since 1980, the Government of Canada has been discharging its obligations as a taxpayer like all other citizens in Quebec. However, there are some exceptions to that legislation which, in my opinion, should be changed. Indeed, not subjected to that legislation and thus excluded from the accounts for the grant purposes are some fixed assets such as jetties, breakwaters and drydocks. Recently, the City of Lauzon has advised me that the exclusion of drydocks alone was reducing the cash taxable value by $20 million and that the Government of Canada was establishing its grants on a basis of $2 million instead of $22 million. We think, Madam Speaker, that this real property should not be excluded and that the legislation should be amended accordingly. 1 tabled a Notice of Motion asking the Government to consider the opportunity of amending the legislation in order to satisfy several municipalities. We should also take that opportunity to reassess all the exclusions to the legislation and consult the organizations involved such as the Union des municipalites.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, it is high time that the people in Government recognize that if you live in a glass house you should not throw stones.
To the south of us exists a powerful and democratic society known as the United States of America. This country is undisputedly one of the greatest countries in the world. Yet more abuse is heaped upon the leaders of this country than is their due. There exist groups and individuals in Canada who condemn all aspects of United States' foreign policy and its stand on defence requirements, without offering reasonable alternatives.
Any positive action taken by the American leaders to ensure security of the North American continent is greeted by such groups as being somehow evil and subversive. These groups fail to realize that the Soviet Union is a very real and threatening power which does not share their humanitarian concerns.
All this would be more tolerable if we did not have a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau ) who denounced the President of the United States as being warlike. He seems to enjoy alienating
COMMONS DEBATES________________ June 7, 1983
the President of the United States. How can we expect the cooperation and aid of that great country when we are in need of protection in time of war?
I suggest that we renew our pledge to friendship and cooperation with our friend and greatest ally, the United States of America, a country which has no fences to keep its people in, a country which has accepted millions of people from over crowded and under privileged countries. God bless America.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to call upon the Government to set up a full public national inquiry into the nuclear fuel cycle in Canada, including the mining of uranium, the storage of radioactive wastes, the transportation of those wastes, safeguard treaties, and both the export and domestic uses of nuclear materials and technologies and the relationship between them and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
There are many good reasons, Madam Speaker, to hold such an inquiry. Unresolved questions abound around the nuclear power issue, and Canadians have never really had the opportunity to be heard on the decision made by technocrats in back rooms to forge ahead with a nuclear future for Canada in spite of growing economic and environmental concerns about the viability of nuclear power as an energy option.
Instead of bending over backward to save a vain and unacceptable energy choice which poses ethical questions that will never be addressed properly within the confines of AECL's internal reviews, the Government should look to the involvement of the people of Canada for instruction on how best to pursue energy for Canada. It should heed the call of the United Church and of many other groups for a public enquiry, something I asked for myself on April 10, 1981, when speaking to a Private Members' Bill in my name that called for just such a process.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, two international organizations on which the Canadian Government is unofficially represented and in which the Parliament Centre for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade appears to play a role, are a source of concern. One is the Trilateral Commission and the other is the Bilderburg Organization. The latter held a meeting recently at Montebello in the Province of Quebec. Both organizations carry on with a secret agenda. Both have ties
with the United States and overseas countries. In both organizations, members with contacts in international financial circles are present.
Where there are secrecy and foreign involvement, dealing with finances, suspicion and distrust exist. What is the ultimate goal of such organizations? Are they concerned with international trade, with the exchange of scientific data? Are they concerned with foreign aid, or are they social gatherings? I feel that those Canadians who are involved in these all-made power broker organizations should be asked to report to the Committee on External Affairs, or a statement should be made by External Affairs on the role of such organizations where Canada is involved.
There is a body of Canadians who fear that such organizations are designed to gain control eventually, at an international level, of the banking systems, which in turn would give them political power exerted through monetary control. The anxieties, concerns, and suspicions created by such surreptitious organizations can, to a degree, be laid to rest by official statements indicating their aims and their goals.


AVIATION INDUSTRY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, the government has announced that it will be building 20 new CL-215 water bombers. CAE in Winnipeg has the assembly jibs and tooling to continue building wing flaps and rudders for water bombers, as it has already been doing during the time from 1980 to 1982. There is now talk of this equipment being moved from Winnipeg to Montreal.
The Winnipeg aerospace industry was promised 10 per cent of the new fighter aircraft contract. This has never materialized. There are 120 aerospace machinists being laid off in Winnipeg by Air Canada. CAE is being forced to close down becauce of lack of contracts. Every effort must now be made to keep hundreds of aerospace workers employed in Winnipeg. This can be done if the Government would leave the equipment that is ready to build the parts for the water bombers in Winnipeg, and not move it to Montreal. Aerospace workers can be employed in Winnipeg if the Government will award contracts to that city in which workers are already knowledgeable and are prepared to assemble the water bombers.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, the food service industry in Canada has 600,000 people on its payroll, 5.7 per cent of the national labour force. Last year the industry
June 7, 1983

made $15 billion in sales which comprised 4.5 per cent of the Gross National Product.
The food service industry also generated some $1 billion in foreign exchange last year from visiting tourists. For every $1 million in sales, $300,000 is generated into wages, and $55,000 goes to the Government in payroll taxes.
Madam Speaker, as you are well aware, serving people is an art, and preparing food is a skill. Our colleges graduate good cooks but not world class chefs. There is a lack of schools with standards necessary to educate skilled technicians. This shortage is creating a bottleneck in the expansion of the food service industry. This is one area where Government can easily stimulate the economy by fulfilling its responsibility to educate Canadians for gainful employment, by upgrading training facilities and thus overcome skill shortages in the food service industry. This should receive the same priority as skill shortages in the manufacturing and resort industries.
Chefs and other food service trades should be designated as national occupations under the National Training Act. It is my hope that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) will give serious consideration to this and that it will become a reality as soon as possible.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, 1 have the duty and responsibility to call to the attention of the House and the country a very serious issue which has arisen in Ottawa this week. It is commonly known in various quarters as the "Week of the Long Knives".
I would like to point out to the House that, some years ago, when the organization to my right went through this exercise, its Leader, who was leaving at that time, happened to make a speech in which he said that the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party were the same, and that anyone within his organization who said that they were not the same did a great disservice to the Party. The problem, as was related by the then Leader, was that the Liberals and Conservatives were basically the same and only the New Democratic Party would change things.
The second individual who has come forward in this "Week of the Long Knives" is a Member of the House and a candidate for Leader who is running on the platform that they will create a policy for the country. In May, 1981, when this individual was asked what his Party would do to change the mess which the Liberals had put in place, he indicated that if they told the Canadian public what would happen, certainly they would never be elected. Hopefully that would be true today, Madam Speaker.
Finally, I believe, to most observers, right back to the beginning of parliamentary tradition in Canada, the first sign
of the alignment of the Conservative Party and Liberal Party was under the banner of an organization called the Liberal-Conservative Party-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, it was not many months ago that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) was taking the joy out of winning an international hockey tournament by declaring a team-won trophy to be owned by one or two of the players and fixed with a value for customs purposes. Medals, trophies, and exchange gifts were dutiable, so Revenue bureaucracy declared. Well, the scrooge strikes again.
Producing and winning an Oscar for his film, "Just Another Missing Kid", was only slightly harder for the St. Catharines-Toronto producer, John Zaritsky, than getting his award home. It took 30 minutes and three separate customs officials to clear the trophy finally before the by then thoroughly annoyed and frustrated producer could get his award through customs.
Trophies or awards such as these are symbolic representations of victory in the field of sport or of achievement in areas of special endeavour. To hassle a team or a winner of such an award, and to delay many other international passengers while so doing, brings discredit to the Department, smacks of bureaucratic red tape and bungling, and calls for an early clarification by the Minister.


ETHNIC AFFAIRS
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, this coming Wednesday, June 8, there will be an ecumenical memorial service sponsored by the Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian communities of Ottawa. This interdenominational service is held in June of each year in memory of the victims of the religious and national oppression of the Baltic and Ukrainian nations.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the artificially created famine in the Ukraine when that nation became victim to a conscious and deliberate attempt by the Soviets to extinguish Ukrainian peasants and workers. Their resistance to the Soviet imposition of a collective, state-run agricultural system was viewed as a bid for independence from Moscow. To suppress what they thought was a politically motivated attitude, the Russian communists caused a genocidal famine to occur by restricting the availability of food in the Ukraine. In

June 7, 1983
Oral Questions
addition, the country suffered further population losses from mass deportations and the decimation of its intellectual elite.
In addition, the month of June, 1940, is recalled by Baltic peoples throughout the world as the most devastating time of their countries' history. Between the 15th and 17th of June, 1940, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, all neutral and prospering countries, were occupied by the Soviets. These three countries are, even today, still under the oppressive influence of the Soviets.
The service this Wednesday at Notre Dame Basilica, commemorating the sufferings of the Baltic and Ukraine nations, will serve to remind us of one of the most threatening aspects of communism, and of the fundamental rights our often taken for granted freedom gives us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today Canadian taxpayers learned that government owned Canadair lost SI.4 billion in 1982, mainly through the Challenger executive jet program, one of the greatest corporate nosedives in our history. The Government also admitted that $1 billion will never be recovered. It is just money down the drain.
Since the Auditor General has warned that spending by Canadair was beyond the control of Parliament, and since the Liberal Government bought Canadair seven years ago, why did the Government blow away SI billion worth of taxpayers' money before taking steps to correct this situation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member might be reminded of the rule that a matter which is being discussed in committee is not the subject matter of debate or questions in Parliament. The Minister responsible for the whole matter is in front of a committee of this House this very day. The Hon. Member knows, or she should know if she is interested in the question for real, that the matter is being discussed there, and under the rules she should attend that committee and find out what is going on.


Mr. Beatty:: It is up to the Speaker to decide; not you.


MANAGEMENT OF CORPORATION
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister
because it is well known that issues of this importance can be brought before the House of Commons.
The Minister responsible for Canadair is blaming Canadair's management for the company's problems, claiming executives gave its shareholders-who are the Canadian taxpayers-misleading information about sales, delivery, and future prospects. For instance, the company was erstimating the sale of 48 Challengers this year. In fact only one has been sold. If corporate mismanagement is the villain, why did the Government appoint some of Canadair's management to the board of the new super Crown agency, the Canadian Development Investment Corporation, Canadair's new owner? If the management was so poor, why did the Government not clean house?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is clearly in breach of the rules. She is making a speech now, probably for the benefit of television, when she should be in committee asking these questions of the Minister responsible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order. I feel that I can allow the question. The Right Hon. Prime Minister is not obligated to answer the question. However, I feel I can allow the question because the Hon.Member for Vancouver Centre is not referring to discussions which took place in committee. The Hon. Member is discussing a subject which can be allowed in Question Period.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Thank you, Madam Speaker.


FUNDING OF CORPORATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Pat Carney: I would like to direct my final supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. The Auditor General has reported in the past that the Government has risked $1.35 billion of taxpayers' money on Canadair by issuing letters of comfort which are beyond the scrutiny or control of Parliament. It is clear that the $240 million in new funding now before Parliament would not even pay the interest on the company's debt this year, let alone the payroll costs, or even its bills.
Was the Government informed last October that taxpayers may have to spend another $500 million to $1 billion to bail out Canadair? Does the Government have any plans to commit more funds to Canadair this year to support the Challenger program? And, if not, how will the company survive?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, there are estimates before the parliamentary committee for,
I believe, $240 million, which is exactly an injection of equity into Canadair. The Minister responsible for Canadair, as the Prime Minister has indicated, is appearing before both the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance Committee, and
June 7, 1983

he will be very happy, I am sure, to provide all the information to the Hon. Member.


Mr. Nielsen:: More cover up.


PAYMENT OF LIABILITIES
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The President of the Treasury Board will know that his colleague, Senator Austin, has disclosed to the press and to others that there is no way that Canadair can ever pay back to its creditors the $1 billion or so which it owes, that that matter will have to be written off. 1 was wondering if the President of the Treasury Board will advise this House if he will be issuing supplementary estimates allowing the Government of Canada to take over, as a direct debt of Canada, the liabilities of Canadair because, as those liabilities will never be paid by Canadair, they have to be borne by the people of Canada? We have guaranteed the debt. Therefore, will he be issuing a supplementary estimate to allow that to be handled directly so that statements for Canada will be properly representative?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the matter which my hon. friend is raising is one which will involve a decision of Cabinet, to be taken on the advice of the Minister of Finance. When a decision in this area is taken, I will be happy to report to the Hon. Member.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: The President of the Treasury Board will know that in November, 1981, there was a special investigative statement brought to Cabinet indicating the financial position of Canadair at that time. The President of the Treasury Board will also know that there was a further inquiry and study presented to the Cabinet in October, 1982. That statement was used to ask for the $200 million which was supplied last year. Will the President of the Treasury Board, now that the Government has decided to come clean to some extent with Canadair, deliver an expose to this House and make available to this House those investigative documents in connection with Canadair so that we can know how we, as a people, lost all that money?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I will have to consult my colleagues on whether or not documents of this sort prepared for Cabinet can properly be released. But I am aware that the Minister responsible for the Canada Development Investment Corporation has today tabled a very extensive report on the operations of Canadair, both now and in the past, and with regard to its future prospects, before the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance Committee. I would think that report, plus the answers by the Minister and his advisers in Committee, will cover the kind of ground in which my hon. friend is interested.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General concerning the new Security Services Bill which has been criticized by lawyers and civil liberties groups all across the country, and which the Minister himself has acknowledged is flawed.
Considering that the Minister said yesterday he might be prepared to have the subject matter referred to a special committee of the House for study and report, has he thought more about this in the past 24 hours, and is he now prepared to say that is a course of action the Government is prepared to pursue?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, the suggestion that the Bill is flawed is one which I reject. I am certainly willing to consider amendments to the Bill, but I am also willing, and I think I am in a position, to defend all of the provisions of the Bill, so it is not a matter of my agreeing that the Bill is flawed. It is debatable, and the purpose of Parliament is to debate Bills. I have acknowledged that I am certainly prepared to see it debated and to accept constructive amendments.
On the question of the reference of the Bill to a committee, I have spoken to my House leader. As the Hon. Member knows, it is a matter for House leaders to decide. 1 have expressed considerable enthusiasm for that, provided that a number of conditions can be met concerning the amount of time it would take, and when it would begin and end. I think the proper way for that matter to be handled is for House leaders to raise it, having the Hon. Member's support for the idea, my support, and the support of Members who spoke yesterday on behalf of the Conservatives.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that I agree entirely with this kind of procedure. Perhaps what we have agreed on in principle on the floor of the House should be worked out by the House leaders. But 1 would like to clarify exactly what the Minister has in mind when he talks about a reference to committee. Does he mean that the committee, as was suggested here in the House yesterday, would simply look at the subject matter, an idea that we in this Party are prepared to support entirely, or is he saying that one of his preconditions is that the House has to agree to second reading of the Bill which is before it now?


Erik Nielsen: No, of course not.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am
certainly glad to provide that clarification. I would like second reading of the Bill, but I am not insisting on it.


Mr. Lewis:: Just as well.

June 7, 1983
Oral Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am certainly prepared to see the Bill referred as a subject to be discussed in the way it has been done in connection with other Bills before second reading.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, this is one of those rare occasions in the House where civility might prevail. I can simply say to the Minister that we are prepared to consider that very seriously.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue pertaining to what benefits are imputed or otherwise accrue when Cabinet Ministers take friends, or relatives not directly related as are wives and children, on Jet Stars. The Minister knows that in the private sector an executive officer of a corporation, or somebody has to pay tax on this sort of thing unless he can prove the trip is necessary for business. Has the Minister considered what the situation is with regard to the case I am now asking him about?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the Department of National Revenue has issued a very clear Interpretation Bulletin on benefits which might be taxable and which are in addition to the income of a taxpayer. According to the Interpretation Bulletin, the first explicit condition for such a benefit to be taxable is that it must be directly related to a job. If in the exercise of job related duties an individual is given a benefit, it becomes taxable, and the Department of National Revenue has issued guidelines on that subject.


TAXATION OF IMPUTED BENEFITS ACCRUING TO MINISTER'S FRIENDS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Let me be more specific, Madam Speaker. The Minister of International Trade, now known by some of his friends as "Wing Commander NC", which means "now caught", is quoted in today's Globe and Mail as saying that he would take friends along for free flights unless there is a specific rule against doing so. Assuming there is no specific rule against doing so, will the friends have any imputed taxable benefits, or will the Minister, because in the private sector people even who have the use of cars are taxed on that use, as the Minister knows. This should be straightened out.


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I should think that the Hon. Member would
be the first one to take the Minister of National Revenue to task for giving any indication, ruling or interpretation whatsoever with respect to the Income Taxt Act when a question has to do with a private individual.


USE OF EXECUTIVE AIRCRAFT BY MINISTERS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning the use of the Department's executive aircraft by Ministers and others. I want to ask him what the policy is with respect to persons who may be carried on those aircraft and, in particular, whether the possibility of taking members of one's family extends to in-laws. I also want to know who is responsible for preparing the manifests for the flights and who is responsible for providing the information with respect to passengers, particularly the status of those passengers, be they family, staff, or whatever?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I have already stated what the guidelines were on the subject. But there has recently been a de facto change in view of the future access to information legislation. The manifest, which includes the names of the passengers, will from now on be accessible to whomever Members of Parliament for example would like to have this information.


STATUS OF PASSENGERS ON FLIGHT TO ANTIGUA
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I want to point out to the Minister of Transport that the manifest for the infamous flight taken by the former Minister of State to Antigua indicates a Mr. and Mrs. Golightly, who have been identified as the Minister's mother-in-law and her husband.


Erik Nielsen: Gerry "go lightly" is right.


Howard Edward Crosby: Unfortunately the manifest indicates they are employees of the Secretary of State. Could the Minister clarify that, and tell us whether his Cabinet colleague was carrying employees connected with the Department of the Secretary of State, or simply taking his in-laws on a holiday?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the information I have is that the Minister of State for International Trade was on his way to represent the Government in Antigua, he was representing the Government of Canada at an official ceremony. That is my information. The plane had to make a refueling stop, and the place where the plane stopped was a normal stopping place on the way to where the Minister of International Trade was going.


Philip Derek Lewis: And they were standing there.
June 7, 1983


PROPOSED APPOINTMENT OF TASK FORCE
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. He is on record as supporting and encouraging, in fact promoting, a task force on youth issues. When can we expect announcement of that task force?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. It is indeed one of the options we are now considering. When I appeared before the Committee on Communications and Culture during the study of the estimates of the Secretary of State, I announced that I will get in touch with all youth organizations this summer with a view to presenting them with a series of proposals on a consultation mechanism through which they could air their views on a youth policy reflecting the interests of young people and of all Canadians concerning those priorities.


UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the Minister is well aware that the serious unemployment situation among young people in Canada is at crisis proportions right now. All indications are that it is going to continue for a long period of time, and that puts a very serious sense of urgency on the problem. Will the Minister not proceed quickly, and then make available to all Members of this House the opportunity to discuss this issue with young people right across the country, rather than delaying for a period of time?


Serge Joyal: Madam Speaker, the concern of the Hon. Member has already been the object of a decision by our colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration who has suggested that a national conference on young people and employment be held this summer in August. As a result of that conference we will be in a position to take decisions reflecting the initiatives which the Government of Canada intends to take to meet the needs of young people in Canada.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Secretary Andropov
Oral Questions
has made an offer to discuss making the Baltic a nuclear weapon-free zone if Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark declare their countries to be nuclear weapon-free zones.
In his role of elder statesman, could the Prime Minister inform the House what advice he might give to our NATO allies and President Palme with regard to this rather unbalanced offer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, they have not asked for my advice, but if the Hon. Member really recognizes in me an elder statesman, I would be happy to discuss the matter with him.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The Prime Minister has given out a lot of advice in the last month or so without being asked for it, I believe.


SOVIET LEADER'S STATEMENT ON DEPLOYMENT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: I wonder if the Prime Minister would think about Mr. Andropov's recent threatening statement that, if the deployment of the Pershing I Is and Cruise missiles went on, he would retaliate by deploying nuclear weapons in the buffer states. I do not know whether Mr. Andropov expected NATO to believe that his short-range ballistic missiles were deployed far out of range of their targets or not, but could the Prime Minister tell the House what his advice to other NATO leaders is on that statement by Andropov? Should it be ignored, or should it be accepted as a basis for negotiations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that we have an example here of the Tory Party desperately struggling for information on a policy. Its Members should be discussing this matter. They have a leadership convention going on. They should know what their position is on this matter.


Erik Nielsen: Write another letter to the newspapers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member suggests that I have given a lot of advice for which I have not been asked. That is not true. If Mr. Palme wants to have my advice on this matter, he will pick up a phone and he will talk to me, as he frequently does. He has not asked my advice on this matter. The Hon. Member should be asking advice of people within his Party who are expected to lead it in some way or another.


Erik Nielsen: Write another letter to the Toronto Star.


Miss MacDonald:: I thought we were still in NATO.

June 7, 1983
Oral Questions CANADA DAY


CELEBRATION OF FIRST OFFICIAL FESTIVAL
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, because of the good work accomplished by the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil with respect to Canada Day, this will be the first year that we will officially celebrate Canada Day on July 1. I wonder if the Secretary of State could inform us of some of the special plans which will be organized for this year's celebration.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Serge Joyal: Madam Speaker, I join with all Members who voted for the amendment which enables us to celebrate Canada Day this year for the first time in our history. With that in mind, I will be in a position this week to advise all associations as well as all men and women who have prepared projects to celebrate this national holiday so that they will receive grants early enough to plan their celebration of Canada Day carefully.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It is a follow-up to the question I asked yesterday with regard to the "low angle radar measurement" program. Yesterday, both in the House and outside it, the Minister stated that this project has nothing to do with Cruise missiles. Does the Minister still stand by that statement? If so, can he tell us why scientists from the Cruise Missile Technology Group of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are regular participants in the testing program, and why a Canadian consultant to the program would freely admit that the major spinoff is for the Cruise missile, that the information yielded by the testing will improve the survivability of these missiles?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I think that this question involving the low angle radar measurement test concerns a test agreement which was signed in 1979. If I remember correctly, it was in November of 1979 that a memorandum of understanding was signed between the United States and Canada to test low angle radar measurement equipment. There was no connection then with the Cruise missile. It was a question of improving our radar capabilities, as I said yesterday, and I think I gave the right answer then. I think, by the way, that the media interpreted my answer very well in the newspapers. I think the Hon. Member should read everything I said yesterday. I still hold to
the view that when this agreement was signed in 1979 there was no question of involving the Cruise missile. No one knew about it in the United States. Then, after that, maybe the technology of what they refer to as low angle radar measurement could be involved in some of the improvements or refinements to the Cruise missile to be tested.


INVOLVEMENT OF UNITED STATES MISSILE TECHNOLOGY GROUP
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that the first part of the Minister's answer is correct and that part of this testing is for low angle radar, but I want to ask him specifically what has happened since that memorandum of understanding was signed in November, 1979? Why would a group, which is called the Cruise Missile Technology Group, be studying this matter if it is not working toward developing technology to use on the Cruise missile? Will the Minister undertake to determine just what is going on in this testing, and undertake to determine if any other testing in Canada is going on which may involve applications to be used in nuclear weapons systems?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member seems to have an obsession about the Cruise missile. There are some other things going on in Canada and in other countries with regard to investigating new technology related to radar, and related to detecting low flying aircraft or low flying missiles, and all of that. The Cruise missile is not the only thing in existence. This radar techonology could be applied to civilian aircraft, it could be applied to the facilities used in the approaches to airports. It could be applied in many areas. In 1979, when we decided to sign the memorandum of understanding, there was nothing about the Cruise missile in the memorandum.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. On March 10 President Ronald Reagan proclaimed an exclusive economic zone, claiming sovereign rights over all living and non-living resources within 200 miles of United States territories. Following this action a Bill was introduced in Congress that would close the U.S. 200 mile zone to all foreign fishing vessels by the end of 1987, with a gradual phase-out beginning next year.
Since this move by the United States could pre-empt the International Court's decision at the Hague on the boundary issue, an action which 1 know he will agree could be most harmful to Canadian fishing interests, I ask the Minister if he has made any representations to his American counterpart to safeguard our fishermen's rights on Georges Bank.
June 7, 1983


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: No, I think that, as my hon. friend knows, this case is now before the International Court. I do not think those unilateral decisions by either country can have any impact. The legal questions at issue here are not influenced by those decisions of the United States.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ACT TO PROTECT CANADIAN INTERESTS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is my understanding that the President made the proclamation as a consequence of his decision not to sign the International Law of the Sea Treaty which was finalized in 1982 after more than a decade of consultations and complex negotiations.
Since the American declaration of an exclusive economic zone will mean that the State Department will no longer be under any obligation whatsoever to allocate any kind of fish to foreign nations, as was required previously under the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, does the Minister plan to take any action whatsoever to protect Canadian fishing interests in the Georges Bank area?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, the reason the American Government did not sign the Law of the Sea Treaty was, of course, because of those clauses relating to the mining of the sea bed. Essentially, its reservations were based on that part of the Treaty which Canada and most countries have signed. As for the question about Georges Bank, there is a dispute between Canada and the U.S. Both sides have voluntarily referred the matter to the International Court, and I think we will have to wait until the decision of the Court.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Following the Minister's announcement about the assistance to be given to the oil-based petrochemical industry, he indicated that a committee or a task force would be established. Has the chairman of that committee been appointed, have the Members been appointed, and when does the Minister anticipate their first meeting?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, the co-chairmen, one from business and one from labour, have been chosen, and a tentative membership list has been selected. These individuals are now being called to
Oral Questions
determine if they are willing to sit on the task force. I think the co-chairmen are planning to hold their first meeting in the third week of June.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it concerns the apparent insolvency of Canadair. The Prime Minister is the only consistent Minister to have taken responsibility for this company.
It has been represented to us that in each of the years 1976 through to 1981 this company made approximately $3 million per year. Now, as of a report dated May 18, it is revealed that it actually lost money in each of the years, to the tune of an aggregate $700 million. Would the Prime Minister indicate first when he became aware of this misrepresentation and, second, what explanation he has for the House for this gross misleading of the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, keeping your earlier judgment on the rules in mind, I would just tell the Hon. Member, with respect, that these matters are being discussed currently before two committees of the House. The Minister responsible for the dossier is testifying in front of those committees today.
Before the Hon. Member reaches the conclusion that there has been misrepresentation or gross misinformation, he might at least do the committee the courtesy of waiting for testimony, asking questions, and seeing what conclusions it will draw. If the Hon. Member feels the Government should then be answering more questions, we will be pleased to do so.


FUTURE FUNDING FOR CORPORATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, in view of that answer perhaps I could ask my supplementary question of the Minister of Finance and deal with something that is before the House at the present time. To what extent is the Minister of Finance prepared to bail out this corporation, bearing in mind that $200 million extra or $300 million extra will not be sufficient? Would he now level with the House and state what it will take to make this insolvent corporation solvent on a viable basis?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, again this is a matter that is being examined. I have had discussions with the Minister responsible for Canadair, for the CDIC, together with the Secretary of the Treasury Board. We are examining this dossier completely. We have been doing this for several weeks, and this examination will be pursued.

June 7, 1983
Oral Questions
As I have indicated, there is in the estimates before the House a request for S240 million for further equity injection into the company.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Is that enough?


Marc Lalonde: That will be enough to carry the company over a few months-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A few months.


Marc Lalonde: -for the bills and the work that has to be carried out over the next while.
Obviously, in terms of the money that would be required over the next five years, that is a matter being examined at the present time. When a decision is reached I will be very happy to inform the Hon. Member.


THE ECONOMY
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Canadian borrowers have a broad concern about the level of interest rates that will prevail in Canada over the next few months and several years. Does the Minister have any idea of what interest rate levels will be in Canada in the next few months? Would he like to give us an indication of what those levels will be?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is very clever, but he knows perfectly well it would be extremely presumptuous of me to say what the interest rate situation will be in a few weeks or months. I can only express the hope that interest rates in Canada will continue to drop as they have done during the past year. At the Summit in Williamsburg, very strong pressure was put on the Americans by all the other industrialized countries, urging them to adopt a policy that would bring about a drop in interest rates between now and the end of the year. I hope it will be possible to bring down interest rates, but as for guaranteeing that this will happen, I am not in a position to do so, and as for telling the Hon. Member by how much interest rates are likely to drop, there again, I think it would be presumptuous on my part to prejudge the situation.


IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT BORROWING
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, in view of the massive Government deficits and the Government's borrowing requirements, when does the Minister anticipate that the impact of this will be felt on the interest rate market? What effect does he feel it will have on interest rate levels in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the very large consensus at the present time is that the deficit has no impact in terms of the interest rates in the short term, that is, either this year or next year. The consensus is that the savings of the country are very large and that there is no danger of crowding out the private sector because the demand for investment in the private sector will be comparatively low in the course of this year and will increase only gradually in the course of next year.
As a matter of fact, I had a discussion in this regard with the American Secretary of the Treasury at Williamsburg, who was arguing quite strongly indeed that, even with their $210 billion estimated deficit, they did not expect this to have a negative impact on interest rates in the short term.
However, the problem of the deficit in the medium term, that is, over a period of several years, is one that should be borne in mind. I have addressed that in my budget by announcing a certain number of measures aimed at gradually reducing the deficit while at the same time meeting the needs and looking afther the best interests of the people of Canada by protecting them against unemployment while trying to stimulate growth of the economy.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Could the Minister inform the House whether his Department has initiated a program to change the method for determining the benefits to employees of certain companies, in the industrial, financial or life insurance sector, in terms of the value of meals taken by employees in company cafeterias or dining rooms? Could he also inform the House how he intends to proceed and whether this is only the beginning? Does the Minister now intend to tax the benefit accruing to employees as a result of meals taken at the Department of National Revenue and in other departments?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think that what the Hon. Member is referring to, namely, the possibility or necessity of taxing work-related benefits, is not a new practice. It is a practice that goes back a number of years, and if I am not mistaken, it was expanded in 1980. Employers are responsible for declaring taxable work-related benefits on the T-4 slips, and the Hon. Member's example comes under this category. Furthermore, employers must follow the guidelines issued at the time in one of the interpretation bulletins.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary. Could the Minister inform the House what other employee
June 7, 1983

fringe benefits he intends to tax. Is he going to include free parking, based on the rates at the commercial parking lot on the next block, and so on?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, it has been some time since I last read the interpretation bulletin for employers, concerning work-related benefits. I promise the Hon. Member and this House that I will review this interpretation bulletin, and I shall then be in a better position to provide further details on this matter to the Hon. Member and other Members of this House.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday the Minister visited a number of dump sites on the U.S. side of the Niagara River. Following that visit he said that he was calling for an urgent series of meetings amongst Government at all levels. He also said the reason for these meetings was that:
-only a fraction of the 2,000 potentially harmful substances that have been detected in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem-
[DOT]-have been identified. Then, in the same breath, the Minister went on to say:
There is no reason to be concerned about the present drinking water quality of water in the Great Lakes.
Can the Minister explain to the House what he means by that kind of a contradictory statement? There is either a problem, or there is not a problem. All the evidence indicates that there is a very serious problem, yet the Minister attempts to brush it aside by making that kind of a statement. It does not make sense, Madam Speaker.


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, yes, I will explain the statement. Perhaps the most useful thing I can do is to refer the Hon. Member to a series of articles appearing at the present time in The Globe and Mail, which very clearly make exactly the same point.
There is no reason to doubt that the present health standards are being met. What we are finding in the water confirms not only that the water quality well and easily meets the standards established by Health and Welfare and also by the World Health Organization. The problems that we are detec-tin now, however, give us concern for the longer term development of water quality in the Great Lakes. If the Hon. Member looks carefully at the speech I made last night, and if he looks carefully at the articles which have appeared in The Globe and Mail, I think he will find a very clear explanation of the difference between the short-term situation and the long-term challenge it presents.
Oral Questions


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, I did not read his speech but I certainly read the press release.


POLLUTION CAUSED BY UNITED STATES DUMPS
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, in the Minister's press release he expresses great concern about the Hyde Park site, the "S" area site, the Love Canal site, and others. The Minister points out that the pollution is certainly stemming from those sources and that the U.S. Government is not taking enough speedy action to clean them up. Will the Minister tell the House whether he has considered taking any legal action against either the U.S. Government or the owners of those dump sites to protect the drinking water supply of some four million Canadians around Lake Ontario?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Madam Speaker, we have considered that course of action. If the Hon. Member would refer to past answers that I have given to the House, he will see that we have explained why we do not believe it is useful for the federal Government to institute legal actions.
We have a variety of means of redress which we exercise with the American authorities. I think it would be unwise for us to abandon, as practically would be the case, our alternative remedies by relying on the court process. If we were to enter legal action it is very possible, indeed probable, that the American administration would say, "Since you entered the legal process we must abide by the results of that process". In fact that process is a very lengthy, time consuming one. While we have supported, in a variety of ways, groups which do intervene in the American legal process, simply in terms of practicality and in maximizing the means by which we have to call upon the American administration for redress it would be unwise for us to restrain ourselves, or restrict ourselves to the legalistic approach.
I think the Hon. Member will find, if he looks at the record, that there has been a long discussion and description of why it is we have taken that approach in terms of the federal Government's involvement in legal action.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does the Minister appreciate the degree of devastation that has been caused in western Canada by the National Energy Program?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I do not know if that is a very appropriate question. I could go on and explain all the policies, the advantages, and the convenience of every policy.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Don't try it.

June 7, 1983
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think the Hon. Member should realize at this time that in western Canada I am having very good relations with the Government of Alberta. When I meet representatives of the industry, they receive me very well. In fact in Calgary the other day 1,650 people from the Chamber of Commerce came to hear me. It is certainly not a very hostile climate.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is what they said afterwards that you should have listened to.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John William Thomson: Madam Speaker, does the Minister seriously believe that that in any way answers the question that I have just asked? Does he really seriously believe just what he said-because people come to see him that he understands the degree of the devastation which the National Energy Program has caused in western Canada? That is no answer at all, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the Hon. Member is not asking a question. He is simply expressing a view which he is entitled to have, but it is not really a question of such magnitude, and it is very difficult to answer in a Question Period. The Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers).


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would like to answer the question, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have followed the press very closely-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Red Deer.


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, in view of the dissatisfaction of the Auditor General with the management of the Canadian Dairy Commission, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the RCMP have undertaken an investigation of the Canadian Dairy Commission, can the Minister of Justice tell the House when its report will be forthcoming?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: I will take that question as notice, Madam Speaker.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE REPORT TO HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thomas Gordon Towers: Could we have the understanding, Madam Speaker, that the Minister of Justice will be making a report to the House of Commons when it is forthcoming?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1 will certainly consider that suggestion, Madam Speaker.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment, following his visit to Niagara yesterday. Recognizing, as the Minister does, that most of the sources of pollutants are on the American side of the river, what commitment did the Minister get from his colleagues on the American side to remedy some time- sooner, not later-the problems of those source pollutants?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I did meet with the new Secretary of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Ruckelshaus, a couple of weeks ago. Yesterday when I was in the Niagara region I did meet with the regional EPA administrator and discussed exactly those issues with her. I do believe the American administration is looking now for ways of acting rather than simply studying these problems. I was encouraged yesterday that the American Government announced it will be using superfund moneys, something like $700,000 as an initial step, in application to the toxic site problems in the Niagara Peninsula. I hope that is a first step and not a final step.
There are some reasons to be encouraged by what appears to be a new attitude taken by the new team in EPA in Washington. But I suggest that it is still important for us to continue with our representations and urgings that the United States take prompt action to respond to these problems.


ACTION TAKEN IN UNITED STATES
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows that he himself stated that his proposed trigovernment level approach is a short-term approach. The Minister has not answered this afternoon anything different from what he has answered on previous occasions. Will he then, if he will not initiate proceedings against U.S. authorities that are polluting the Niagara River, join with the other intervenors in opposition to the "S" area contaminant site?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I have not announced anything particularly new in answer to the questions today because the questions are the same old questions we have continually been receiving, and the answers are the same. I have already explained. If the hon.
June 7, 1983

gentleman had been more interested in listening to the question posed by his colleague in the New Democratic Party he would have realized the question he has now asked is one I have already answered previously today.
I have given as full an explanation as I can, not only today but in the past, about why it would be unwise to confine ourselves to the legal processes as a means of getting redress for these situations in the United States. We must use the whole array of instruments available to us. Those include direct government representation, public information programs, and assisting groups who do intervene in the legal processes. But it would be unwise, impractical, and counter to our interests if we were to intervene directly in the American court process ourselves.


TEXTILES AND CLOTHING
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to whom I gave notice. My question concerns the possible loss of 600 jobs in Edmonton in the textile industry. Will the Minister support an application by GWG of Edmonton to the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board for a $200,000 grant that will enable a $700,000 modernization program to take place, undertaken by GWG? That would save 600 jobs in the hard hit textile industry at a time when the unemployment rate in Edmonton is at a very high 13 per cent.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, based on the information which the Hon. Member has given me, it seems like a very legitimate application. I will discuss it on his behalf with the officials of CIRB.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, June 6, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Petitions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, with the consent of and in the name of the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), I have the honour to present the Seventh Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure in both official languages. I want to say to the House that this is the famous "Huntington-Lachance" report which has now been the light of day in this particular form.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege today to present a petition on behalf of the Peel Chapter of the 43,000-member Registered nurses Association of Ontario who wish to call on Members of Canada's Parliament to ensure that the proposals of the Canadian Nurses Association for health care are included in the drafting of the new Canada Health Act.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. The purpose of this petition, signed by a number of citizens in central Alberta, is to register concern over Bill C-85, an Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex. The nature of this petition is to have Clause 14 removed from the Bill.
The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that in your examination of their petition you will find the petition in order, sense the urgency of their plea, and that you might use the powers of your office to allow for discussion and further debate on this matter.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and honour today to present a petition on behalf of some 72 students of the North Battleford Comprehensive High School in the City of North Battleford. They are concerned about and opposed to the testing of the Cruise missile on or over Canadian territory. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

June 7, 1983
Order Paper Questions MR. SKELLY-MARINE INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the House of Commons from a number of residents of the community of Prince Rupert, British Columbia. Those citizens ask that Canada create a marine industrial strategy which would allow thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in industrial benefits to accrue to Canadians. In addition, I would indicate that the Government of Canada should produce legislation to implement the recent marine policy put forward, and finally that there should in fact be serious consideration of the Canadian frigate program with the two-two-two split in eastern Canada, central Canada and western Canada.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present a petition from the residents of Mozart, Saskatchewan, who now exercise their right to present a grievance. They humbly sheweth that the Crow rate is basic to the bargain of Confederation made with the people of western Canada, that changing the Crow rate \Vill drastically reduce farm incomes and will effectively destroy the competitiveness of Canadian grain on world markets, and that three royal commissions have recommended that the Crow rate must remain.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate into perpetuity as presently guaranteed in statute.

[ Translation]



CUSTOMS ACT


Pierre Bussières: for leave to table Bill C-162, an Act respecting Customs.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 4,791.
[ Text]


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the total number of supernumeraries or vulnerable employees in the Public Service?
2.	In the last year, how many have been (a) added to (b) removed from the list?


David P. Smith: 1. In the Public Service, employees whose jobs are abolished as a result of the discontinuance of functions or the lack of work, are identified as being "surplus" to operational requirements and are notified in writing that they are "surplus". The notification has to be sent to employees at least three months before the date the functions are no longer needed. This surplus period is a period of redeployment, that is to say, during that time the Department and the PSC concentrate their efforts on appointing these people to vacant positions elsewhere in the Public Service. At the end of this period, however, if offers have been turned down or no job has been found, the employee is laid off. The term "supernumeraries" or "vulnerable employees" is used in some Departments to refer to employees who are likely to become surplus but have not yet been declared surplus. When Departments refer to employees as being "supernumerary" or "vulnerable", it is normally because they expect to find other jobs in their own Department for the employees.
At the end of April, 1983, there were 705 surplus employees in the Public Service on the surplus priority list.
2. During the fiscal year 1982-83, 1,128 were declared surplus and added to the priority list. During the same period 956 employees were removed from the list.


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


Madam Speaker:: The question mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-85, to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from
June 7, 1983
[Stage Direction]
Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture; and Motions Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11 and 12.
Marcel-Claude Roy: Madam Speaker, before recess, 1 was explaining what was the situation when the Liberal Government decided to set up marketing boards so as to provide producers with a higher income and more especially greater income stability because of the substantial increase in production costs. The Opposition was against that plan. The arguments they put forward then were exactly the same as those I heard during the 85 hours this bill was considered in committee and discussed in the House. So much for the evolution of Conservative thinking. If the Canadian people had had to wait for that evolution, many bills would never have seen the light of day. What I find most surprising however is their difficulty in taking a stand or in agreeing on a program. Opinions are always divided.
I referred earlier to marketing boards, mentioning what they have meant for poultry, broiler and egg producers. At the moment, we are not dealing with a marketing board. The purpose of Canagrex is to facilitate and promote the export of agricultural and food products from Canada. There is no need to look any further than the position of the Progressive Conservatives about the whole slate of Bills introduced by the Liberal Government. Take the Crow rate alone, again a source of division within the Progressive Conservative Party. The issue of Canada Day was raised earlier this afternoon and, sure enough, they were divided again. It stands to reason that the Progressive Conservative Party simply cannot be unanimous in endorsing Canagrex. During the leadership campaign, I would have liked to hear the candidates say where they stand on health programs in Canada. The subject was not even mentioned because they have no definite policy on those wide ranging programs which concern the people of Canada. None of the leadership candidates-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member is getting too far away from the subject or the amendments now before the House. He has just introduced an entirely new element in the debate. I would urge the Hon. Member to relate his comments as much as possible to the amendments now before the House.


Marcel-Claude Roy: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. But the reason why I used that argument is that I was talking about the approach and the philosophy of a party, and I will use an example to illustrate again-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I apologize to the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Roy), but I should like to remind him and other Members that we are now at the report stage, that the scope of the debate is considerably reduced, and that speeches must be relevant to the regrouped
Canagrex
amendments. It is true that we are now studying over half a dozen amendments, but remarks such as the Hon. Member's would be more appropriate either on second or third reading. So, again I would urge the Hon. Member to co-operate and keep his remarks within the ambit of the amendments.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about philosophy, and I do think this is relevant to the Bill. I am referring to the speech made by the Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), and that is where attitudes and philosophy come in. We were comparing Canagrex. Mr. Speaker, Canagrex will have exactly the same powers the Canadian Wheat Board has now. We only want to give Canagrex the same powers as the Canadian Wheat Board. However, as soon as the Canadian Wheat Board is mentioned, the Progressive Conservatives get upset because the Board is the West's baby. We in the East are proud of the Canadian Wheat Board. All we want is an agency through which Canadian products will find their way more readily to export markets. This is extremely important to Canada, because our domestic market is limited to 24 million consumers, and 50 per cent of Quebec and Canada's products and food products are exported outside the country, because, as I said, our domestic consumption is limited. Perhaps I may draw a parallel with the situation in the United States, which has 10 times as many people and where exports represent only 30 per cent of their income, while in Canada, farm producers depend on export markets for 50 per cent of their income. That is why we want to have a mechanism through which we can continue to develop our export markets-and that mechanism is Canagrex-in order to help producers increase sales and expand their markets.
Canagrex has no power to be in a monopoly position with respect to any product whatsoever, and this is quite clear in the legislation and applies to both exports and imports. It is not a marketing board, a subject to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, which plans production on the basis of demand, so as to guarantee the producer a steady income, more directly based on his production costs and reflecting a satisfactory profit margin. That is the purpose of marketing boards, and the principle is now being applied to the market for roasting chickens, poultry and eggs. The Opposition has objected to those boards systematically, and similarly. It is objecting again today to the Liberal Government's decision to implement certain plans. They would rather kill the issue here and now. They prefer the status quo to whatever measures we have introduced. They said no to the Crow rate. What is wrong with the status quo? Do not touch the marketing boards! Do not change the Crow rate! No to Canagrex! Do not touch it! They go along with the principle, but they refuse to give the Government any power. They buy the machine, not bad, but no gas, no power! That was more or less the attitude embodied in the amendments moved by the Opposition on July 19, 1982, and today, they are blaming us for imposing closure on a debate

June 7, 1983
Canagrex
that has already gone on for 85 hours in committee. The amendments were brought in on July 19, 1982, and today again, they are indulging in systematic obstruction because all they know how to say is no.
However, their differences on the subject of national policies have put the Progressive Conservatives in the Opposition for several decades, and those differences, their inability to agree on national policies, will continue to keep them in the Opposition, Mr. Speaker.
They referred to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! The Hon. Member's time has expired.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, for the Government to bring Canagrex, Bill C-85, into the House of Commons when it has probably less than ten days of Government business between now and the date of rising for the summer recess is nothing but public mischief. The trouble in the country today is that the people have lost all trust and faith in this Government. This Bill leads to control over individual lives, control over the Canadian farming community and Canadian farmers and control over businesses in the food chain.
This is not a farmers' Bill. It is not an agricultural Bill. It is a Bill that will touch the lives of all of us in Canada. It is just like the Government's mischief in turning 180 degrees on the Gilson formula for the resolution of the Crow debate in Canada. It is doing this in the dying hours of this session, provided we do not come in and renew it on July 4 or later in the fall.
Very few people have their eye on the real game that is being played and won in Ottawa. We all have a tendency to get locked into our own thing around here or to have our attention diverted by deliberate confrontations with labour, the Provinces, businesses and regions in this country. We just heard a speech by the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Roy). That is just trying to dig up regional alienation and confrontation. We are allowing mega-political change to take place in this country without an electoral mandate.
Before you worry about my speaking to the Bill, Mr. Speaker, I want to advise you that I am speaking to Motions Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, all grouped together. This means that in ten minutes I have to speak in rather broad, general terms. I therefore ask your forgiveness if I do not stay within specific limits.
On the point that I am making, in the weekend paper Mr. Tetley had his finger on the kind of mischief we are getting into in this House in our political alienation and the antagonism that is developing within regions. Speaking of the next election, Mr. Tetley said:
But don't ever count the dreaded Grits out of the big race that is yet to come.
When the Party that brought you Japanese internment camps in the Second World War starts worrying about racism and bigotry, you can bet there is something up their sleeve other than somebody else's silverware.
Save Quebec they whisper and ethnic the hell out of Ontario. Screw the West and we'll win again.
That seems to be the type of mistrust that is developing in the country, especially on the part of some of us out West, in response to the Government's attitude in bringing in Bill C-85 in the last hours of the session. What has the Government done to the potential we had? The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) had the potential to create a very positive debate on the Crow and implement the Gilson proposals right in the palm of his hand. But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the way he went about it was not rough, tough politics. He had pacified the country in a very intelligent way. That is what the Minister of Agriculture should be doing with this Bill instead of imposing closure on it and forcing the hand of the House on something of this magnitude that affects the lives of every Canadian, the whole food industry in the country and changes the whole structure and nature of the country. Instead of that, he is trying to pull this kind of a trick. No wonder some of us are annoyed.
Today we have heard much from the Minister and from the Hon. Member for Laval. They have indicated that we as a Party were gifted in the art of putting Crown corporations in place. That is quite true, but if the Hon. Member for Laval knew anything about Crown corporations, he would know that they have a history. First we were in a pioneering phase, then we were in a depression phase. There then followed a wartime period. Mr. Howe, a great Canadian, created 32 Crown corporations during that national emergency. Only one of those Crown corporations was phased out after the war.
Following that phase, there was a nationalism and patriotism phase that created further Crown corporations. We then went to the mixed enterprise phase that the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) introduced in 1968 in order to create a mixed economy, and Crown corporations were used for that. Then from 1972 on, Mr. Speaker, we went to a proliferation phase.
I can remember when Treasury Board officials were asked in committee how many Crown corporations there were, they did not know. Four months later they came back with an inventory of 387 Crown corporations. That is what has happened to the country. We have allowed a subgovernment across the country to remove power from the House of Commons. We have transferred power, and it is this raw, bald power over freedom, over lives, over the right to choose that we have transferred to this subgovernment. It is a power that you and I will never have, Mr. Speaker. Kings and queens do not have the kind of power that some of the officials of these Crown corporations have. The new emperors of Canada are the Maurice Strongs and the Jack Austins. These are the men who are in control of a power that is beyond belief. Kings and queens have never had that kind of power. I as a Member of Parliament who represents people from western Canada want that power restricted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 7, 1983


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I want the House of Commons to start doing its job, to show some responsibility by pulling some control back into the House of Commons. Backbenchers must start serving the people, not these bureaucrats and appointees and these ideologues who control these corporations. The situation has become so dangerous that we are losing our freedom to choose. It is time some of us got angry and did something about it. I would like to hear free speeches from Government backbenchers in order to get the matter under control.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! The Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Roy), on a point of order.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I am being accused of saying things I never said. When I talked about the question of powers, I meant that in that case, most members of the board are taken from the private sector, and it is not a matter of having all the powers of a Crown corporation, because I have a great many reservations as to the activities of a number of Crown corporations, and I would refer the Hon. Member to a speech I made previously-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! This is obviously a contribution to the debate and certainly not a point of order.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, as that was not a point of order, could you please add two minutes to the time allotted to me? The Hon. Member was only trying to break my train of thought and disrupt a message that I have for the people of the country.
You heard from other speakers today, Mr. Speaker, including the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), that there are 32 powerful organizations and associations in the food industry and the agricultural industry in western Canada that are dead against this Bill. Provincial Premiers are against this Bill as well. One provincial Minister of Agriculture calls this Bill a piranha in a goldfish bowl. I have spoken to the Agriculture Minister of British Columbia and he is against this Bill. Yet the Government continues to ram it through under closure even when it creates this kind of alienation, temper and concern in the country. It is dangerous to try to force this Bill through in the final hours of this session.
I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Government under this Prime Minister has three basic priorities. The first priority is the control of culture and communications. Look at what has happened in this session with the Kent Commission and the Applebaum-Hebert Report under Jacques Hebert. Look at Pierre Juneau who, along with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), was one of the drafters of this strategy back in 1964. Where is he now? He is the head of the CBC and is now rewriting the Broadcasting Act. Culture and communications are very important to the Government. We will be controlled by a great cultural wave.
Canagrex


Marcel Dionne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Dionne), on a point of order.


Marcel Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my hon. colleague speaking to Bill C-85, and I must say he completely by-passed the subject, as usual. I would therefore ask the Chair to ask the Hon. Member to speak to Bill C-85.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Dionne) has invoked the rule of relevancy. As usual, the Chair has been listening intently to the speech now being made and the Chair finds itself in some difficulty. In a sense, the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) are related in a general way to the subject matter now before the House. Of course, in case of doubt the Chair must exercise lenience in favour of the Member who is speaking. Nevertheless, all Hon. Members should be guided by the general rule of relevancy and should try to stick with it as much as possible.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I trust that you will add another three minutes to my allotted time, and I thank you for your courtesy and your consideration.
The second fundamental priority of the Government is control of energy through the central Government. It is removing control of resources from the Provinces.
Let me now deal with the third priority. Just go back and look at the Government's legislative timetable. The third priority of the Government is state control over the food chain. That is what Canagrex is all about. Canagrex is nothing but another national energy policy, but this time it is designed to control food. The Minister of Agriculture can shout across the House and say: "Those words are in the Bill but we will not use them; I said in committee that we would not use them". If he does not require the powers contained in the Bill, all he need do is remove the buy-sell powers, listen to the amendments suggested by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) instead of turning a deaf ear to them, and he can have the Bill. In committee we told him repeatedly that all he has to do is remove the buy-sell powers and he can have the Bill. I doubt, Mr. Speaker, that what the Government is doing is something that even the Hon. Minister of Agriculture understands. He is under instructions from his chief, the Prime Minister. He does not even know what he is really doing. He senses the presence of power that can be given to friends who will be put in charge of this corporation.
What about those who run food businesses and are of a different political ideology? Will those people ever have a chance if they are not in the political favour of the Party in power that controls an organization like Canagrex? No, the freedom of choice is disappearing with this kind of legislation. Canagrex, Mr. Speaker, is empowered to purchase agricultural

June 7, 1983
Canagrex
and food products and package, process, store, ship, insure, import, export, sell or otherwise dispose of products purchased by it. It is empowered to make grants and contributions for the purposes for which it was established and to purchase, lease or otherwise acquire and hold real personal property for actual use by Canagrex.
Those powers, Mr. Speaker, are awesome and dangerous when the House of Commons and the Auditor General do not even have the power to overview, audit or question professionally the people who comprise this subgovernment through the power that is distributed to friends and ideologues. That is what is at issue in this Bill. This is not the hour in Canada's history to be shoving this Bill down our throats under the force of closure!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Canagrex, Mr. Speaker, can create a state monopoly for the export of agricultural products along the lines of such trading bureaucracies as exist in the socialist countries. My goodness, can we not learn from the experience of others who stifled and smothered initiative, the right to be free and the right to make a decision in the agricultural communities and the agricultural processing communities? When are we going to learn in this country? Why do we have to throw away that heritage and that freedom which we were given? That is what this Bill is doing, Mr. Speaker. What is happening with this avalanche of Crown corporations is the transferring of power out to ideologues and to "friends" and to people who are not answerable or accountable to the people of Canada. It is time we stopped it, and the time to stop it is with this Bill right now. Wait until we catch our breath. The Government does not need it right now. It is not going to add anything to this country. It is just going to damage us and create more regional antagonism and, of course, that is their very game.


Marcel Dionne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Dionne), on a point of order.


Marcel Dionne: I would like to ask the Hon. Member how many times he attended the meetings of the Committee on Agriculture?


An Hon. Member:: Never!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Before asking a question, the Hon. Member must obtain the consent of the Hon. Member who just finished speaking.


Marcel Dionne: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member agree to my asking him a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That requires the unanimous consent of the House, because the Hon. Member's time has expired.

Is there unanimous consent to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to ask a question?


Charles James Mayer: Not from a bunch of goofs like you guys, that is for sure.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I gather there is not unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, like other Hon. Members, I rise to speak on this Bill C-85, at the report stage, in a dispute which is totally unnecessary because, as you will know, Mr. Speaker, at second reading we said that this Bill has three provisions: the first one is to promote the export of agricultural production from this country, and on that heading we agreed totally; the second is the establishment of credit facilities in order to help companies financially to compete against other companies which were subsidizing the export of agricultural products, and with that heading we agreed completely. However, right from the start we have disagreed with the third part of this Bill because we know it is part of a broader scheme referred to by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), with whom I agree 100 per cent, that is, the clauses wherein Canagrex can become the Petro-Canada of the food industry in that it has broad powers to buy and sell. That has been the basis of our opposition, Mr. Speaker, right from the start. The Government could have had the Canagrex Bill within one hour, a speech from each of the three Parties, if it had discarded that third clause, the buy and sell provision. The people of Canada have to know that. Certainly those in the agricultural industry do.
I am speaking to eight of the amendments and I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is obvious that the Government will prevail with the alliance between itself and the New Democratic Party, because the NDP is going to defeat these motions before us which will take away the buy and sell provisions. The New Democratic Party is once again going to sell out the West. It is going to vote with the Liberal Government as it did on the Constitution, because, of course, you have a New Democratic Party which does not want people to own land. That Party opposes the right to property. Why would Hon. Members of that Party now stand and argue for a clause-


Raymond John Skelly: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Order, please.
June 7, 1983


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Hon. Member over there is suffering from delusions, and I would ask that you bring in the point of relevancy again at this stage, with a test of rationality on this, of course.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are out of order.


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


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party is very nervous about that because it has lost a Government in the West over their ideological stand to block individuals from having the privilege of owning land. Therefore, the Party is very sensitive. It is also sensitive because it stood with the Government over the National Energy Program. However, I would like to explain to you why we put that argument against the buy-sell provision in this clause, why the amendments before you are to withdraw those buy-sell powers. There is some very good evidence which Hon. Members opposite should listen to. It concerns the growth of these Crown corporations, once we get them going. You would need to look, Mr. Speaker, at the most recent report from the Treasury Board, the Government's own document, which points out, for example, that Air Canada has five subsidiaries which it owns 100 per cent. It has seven subsidiaries which it owns 50 per cent to 99 per cent and there are 12 subsidiaries in which it holds less than 50 per cent interest. The CNR has 59 subsidiary corporations in which it owns 100 per cent of the shares. There are six subsidiaries of the CNR in which it owns 50 per cent to 99 per cent, and there are some eight subsidiaries in which the CNR owns less than 50 per cent of the shares. There is the CDIC which is just being put together now by 17 Orders in Council before a Bill was put before the House. It will be the most massive intervention in the civil and business part of this country which we have ever seen.
Let me give an example which is so typical of the attack on the West, Mr. Speaker, that is, the National Energy Program and the Petro-Canada legislation. You can ask me, Mr. Speaker, why we have all of these subsections to take out the buy-sell provision. Let us look at Petro-Canada. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada started in 1976. It has bought out three major private corporations, all of which were paying income tax to National Revenue. Petro-Canada pays a few dollars in but still takes out more than twice, in terms of parliamentary appropriations, of what it returns in income tax. Then there is the four cents a gallon tax. Let us look at the subsidiaries, Mr. Speaker. Since 1976, Petro-Canada has 44 subsidiary corporations in which it owns 100 per cent of the shares. It has two subsidiary corporations in which it owns between 50 per cent and 99 per cent of the shares, and it has eight subsidiary corporations in which it owns less than 50 per cent. That is a total of 54 subsidiary corporations which have now been taken over by Petro-Canada or set up by Petro-Canada. We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that they must all have their bureaucracies and those bureaucracies are appointed by the Cabinet. When the Hon. Member for Capilano says that we have corporations with more power than ancient kings and queens, he speaks the truth.
Canagrex
I believe, Mr. Speaker, in order to make the point so that the Government and the New Democratic Party will finally see the error of their ways and vote for these amendments, I am going to give you the names of those subsidiaries of Petro-Canada. And that is right on the major point which we are discussing. Subsidiaries held at 100 per cent are Canertech Conservation Inc., Pacific Enercon Ltd., Mechron Energy Ltd., 107744 Canada Inc.-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Oh, sit down, he is on the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Order, please. The Chair would ask the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) to indicate in what way the list of companies he is now putting before the House is related to the specific amendments now before the House.


Mr. Malone:: That should be very obvious.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, we have eight motions which take the buy-sell provisions, the state corporation dimensions, out of Canagrex. And I am, by way of illustration, pointing out to you how important these amendments are because since 1976, Petro-Canada, as an illustration, has now 54 subs and sub-subsidiary corporations. In order to make that point, I want to list them. I want to stick it down the throats of those guys sideways, if I can, so that they finally speak up and stop being "yes men"-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Order. I am sure the Hon. Member in his mind believes that the matter he is now raising is related in some way to the specific amendments. However, even though the amendments have been regrouped for the purpose of debate, I must ask the Hon. Member to indicate to the Chair to what amendment or amendments the matter he is now raising relates? The chair finds it difficult to make the connection. Of course, the Chair may be totally wrong; it sometimes happens. The Hon. Member would be helpful if he could explain the matter a little more.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had when I was explaining to you that, by illustration, you can often show just how damaging the clauses in this Bill are. That is the reason we have these eight amendments to take out the buy-sell power, the state trading corporation aspect. I seek your ruling on this, but it seems perfectly clear to me that an illustration from another example within the last few months can show you clearly that there is danger in this Canagrex Bill. That is why I intend to carry on, Mr. Speaker, unless you rule me totally out of order. I think the House needs to hear this.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I am listing as follows the 100 per cent fully owned Petro-Canada subsidiaries: Drilling Inc.; Petro-Canada Consulting Corporation; Petro-Canada Exploration Inc.; Asher American, Inc.; Big EAgle Oil & Gas Ltd.;

June 7, 1983
Canagrex
Aquilla Holdings Ltd.; Fifth Pacific Stations Ltd.; GMI Co. (Bahamas) Limited; Opal Oils Limited; Commodore Oils Limited; First Pacific Stations Ltd.; Second Pacific Stations Ltd.; Third Pacific Stations Ltd.; Fourth Pacific Stations Ltd.; Pacific Petrochemicals Ltd.; Pacific Pipelines, Inc.; Pacific Petroleums (Overseas) Limited; Petro-Canada Enterprises Inc.; Arctic Islands Resources Ltd.; Independent Fuels & Lumber Ltd.; Joseph Elie Limitee; March Dufresne (1979) Inc.; Petro-Canada Chemicals Inc.; Petro-Canada Espanola S.A.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) is rising on a point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, there can only be one reason for such an animated reading into the record of the list the Hon. Member is reading at this time. He must seriously be considering a last minute bid for the leadership, because he is certainly not relevant to what is being debated in the House today.


Gordon Edward Taylor: At least he is talking to the point; that is more than you did.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Chair is exercising considerable leniency in ruling in favour of the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills. It seems to me the matter is rather on the borderline at this stage.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, you can see the point being made. The people who want state control and ownership are very upset about this. All these corporations have come out since 1976. I am going to tell the Canadian people about it, and they are going to listen because they now see the danger of that Government.
Why do we need Petro-Canada Espanola S.A.? Why do we need Petro-Canada Norway A.S.? Why do we need Petro-Canada Petroleum Inc., Petro-Canada Products Inc., Petro-Canada Resources, Petro-Canada (U.K.) Limited, Petroleum Transmission Company, Petron Petroleum Ltd., Rocair Limited, Tri-Mountain Petroleums Ltd., Value Serve Stations Ltd., or Venezuelan Canadian Oils, C.A.?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Chair must really bring this matter to some finality. In the Chair's opinion, the Hon. Member has departed considerably from the subject of the amendments at hand.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I must invite the Hon. Member to relate his comments to the object of the amendments. Some of them deal with loans and guarantees, others with financial arrangements, the promotion and trade of agricultural produce and so on. The orientation of the Hon. Member's speech is really taking us into the field of energy per se, which is another substantial matter which ought to be debated at another time. I invite the Hon. Member to relate his remarks to Canagrex.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I could read on and on from the list of Petro-Canada subsidiary corporations, but I certainly
accept your ruling that it might not be strictly relevant. I think the point has been made. I can tell Members opposite, some of them who come from eastern European countries and should know better because they have friends and relatives who are living and suffering in those countries right now, that this Canagrex legislation is going to be exactly the same.


Mr. Blais:: Don't be silly.


Blaine Allen Thacker: It will not be tomorrow; it will be two years or five years down the road, and I will be standing up here reading a list of corporations which are subsidiaries of Canagrex. When the Estimates came in, I stood and asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray): "Will this be all?" They were bragging about how it was only a 10 per cent increase over last year. I pointed out how the increases are always up 17 per cent when the Supplementary Estimates come in. He stood up and said "Oh, there will be no Supplementary Estimates. Don't worry about it, Mr. Thacker". Well, in fact we have already had one set of Supplementary Estimates for $1.3 billion. The federal Government spending will be up 17 per cent this year, as it has been for every year recently.
Within a very few short years, Mr. Speaker, Canagrex will have itself subsidiary corporations which will take over more and more of the food industry. The cost, which is the important point, will come out of taxpayers' pockets. Ordinary Canadians will be paying for the high, fancy salaries of dozens and dozens of directors and presidents of these corporations.
One of my amendments to this Bill is to make those salaries public. The Government rejects that because it does not want the ordinary Canadian to see how much some of the Liberal political friends are making in these appointments to jobs as presidents and directors. If the Liberals were not of that mind, Mr. Speaker, why did they not accept my amendment to make that information public? Why would they not put a limitation on the tenure of directors? My amendment would have done that, and the Government is going to reject it. It is just like the situation we found when we got in Government in 1979. Some of the Liberal's best friends had been appointed to powerful positions for ten years, I think in one case it was for 20 years. What kind of Government is that? These appointments should be limited to three years, with perhaps one renewal if they are lucky. After that we would bring other people in because that is a way of renewing and revitalizing these corporations and making them more sensitive. That is one of the amendments we want to make to this Canagrex Bill and it is not there.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the main point we are trying to make is that these Crown corporations are a sub-Government. They permit an unnatural concentration of power and decision-making authority over the lives of other people, and they do it on a non-accountable basis to Members of Parliament, the elected representatives. If you talk to Canadians on the street, they believe that we as their elected representatives should be exercising some control over these corporations. But
June 7, 1983

we do not exercise that control. The fact of the matter is that the Government backbenchers, the NDP and the Official Opposition have no control over them. They are totally unaccountable to us and to Cabinet, and we have to solve that problem. If the Government would accept these amendments, that would happen.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Mr. Speaker, I will not be speaking very long but I simply wanted to register my views relating to the amendments before us and take issue with the comments made by my friend opposite.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I think you have your nerve speaking on it at all. It is under closure.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I get tired, as I am sure most other Members do, of hearing about these immense conspiracies afoot relating to the creation of Crown corporations in order to prevent the Canadian people from learning what is going on. I just cannot imagine that hon. gentleman saying and meaning those comments, especially-


Blaine Allen Thacker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the Minister discussing the 54 subsidiary corporations of Petro-Canada and whether or not that does indicate some conspiracy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. That is not a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Especially when he knows, Mr. Speaker, that, in accordance with the rules under which we operate in this House, all the annual reports of Crown corporations are automatically referred to committee. Those committees can call upon those particular Crown corporations to come forward and be examined by them. Any amounts that are requested by Crown corporations from appropriations or through votes, approved by this Parliament, must all be reviewed by the parliamentary committees which are responsible-


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: That's not true.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -for those individual companies. We saw, in the Canadair question-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Minister does not want to mislead the House with that last statement. Crown corporations are not coming before parliamentary committees for proper examination. Most of them one cannot even identify.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. That is obviously debate.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The example in point is Canadair, Mr. Speaker, which was before two committees this morning.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Because it just lost $1.4 billion.
Canagrex


Jean-Jacques Blais: It was before the Finance Committee and before the Public Accounts Committee at the request of the individual committees themselves and the Chairmen.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you ruled the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) out of order for speaking of this matter. Surely to goodness, Your Honour will not now permit the other side to speak on it.


Mr. Rossi:: Go back to sleep.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It's all right for you, but not for anyone else. Let's have the same rules, eh?


Carlo Rossi: Go back to sleep.


An Hon. Member:: You were snoring for awhile there.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Let's have the same rules.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Chair feels that the Hon. Member for Bow River is quite right. In fact, the Chair was at the point of rising to invite the Minister to relate his remarks to the amendments before the House. The Chair invites all Hon. Members to do just that. It is a testy time, and the Chair is called upon to rule upon these differences, and especially to apply the rules. Surely, experienced parliamentarians would not want the Chair to rise every two or three minutes to remind them what the rules are all about.


Arnold John Malone: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What the Minister is doing is giving his view that Crown corporations are accountable. Coming to the point of order, I just-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I must immediately indicate that a point of order must have something to do with procedure before the House. It should not relate to points of debate. Therefore, if the Hon. Member for Crowfoot has a point of order, I would like to hear it.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Get to your point of order.


Arnold John Malone: I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that it would be quite acceptable for the Minister to continue in that vein as long as he quotes from the most recent Report of the Auditor General of Canada who has very carefully documented that thesis.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to commend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).


Donald W. Munro: Oh, no!


Douglas Charles Neil: You did that last time.


Jean-Jacques Blais: In terms of the Canagrex Bill, you, Mr. Speaker, who have seen the development of this particular Bill, will know that it has had a very long history. There has been a great deal of determination on the part of the Minister of

June 7, 1983
Canagrex
Agriculture. He is promoting the Bill, and has been very flexible in committee on this Bill-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Forgive him, Father, for he knows not what he does.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -in order to accommodate a great deal of the criticism which has been brought to our attention by Members of the Opposition. I personally feel that the Minister of Agriculture, who has held this portfolio for a number of years, has really been one of the most progressive Members of the Government. I am very pleased to be able to second him in the efforts he is making relating to this particular legislation.
It is not surprising that such a Bill has a hard time getting through the House. We have heard the howls from the Members of the Opposition. They seem to forget that Canada is an exporting country and that it is one of the four countries of the world which are exporters in agricultural products. As a matter of interest, last year our exports were over $4 billion to the good. We had a net export surplus of over $4.6 billion.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Tell us about finished goods.


Jean-Jacques Blais: One of the major agents in securing that export is the Canadian Wheat Board. Anyone who attempts to tell me that the Canadian Wheat Board is somehow a creation of the private sector evidently does not know-[DOT]


Blaine Allen Thacker: Point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -of what he speaks and, indeed, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills is rising on a point of order.


Blaine Allen Thacker: In terms of procedure, the Hon. Member should know that the U.S. increased its exports by 500 per cent, and the Canadian Wheat Board by 50 per cent in the same comparable period. The United States does not have Crown corporations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. That is debate.


Arnold John Malone: It sure is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Minister has the floor.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, it has been recognized in the International Wheat Market that the Canadian Wheat Board is the most efficient and most competent wheat agency in the market at this particular time.


Eugene Whelan: In the world.


Jean-Jacques Blais: No one disputes that fact.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It's the only one.


Jean-Jacques Blais: As a result of the presence of the Canadian Wheat Board, wheat farmers in western Canada have been able to bank upon their assets, knowing full well that they have
one of the best marketing agencies involved in the marketplace trying to sell their product, and it has been sold quite effectively.


Douglas Charles Neil: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister is aware of the fact that the Wheat Board makes use of the private sector to carry out most of its sales.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: All of its sales in the private sector.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what Canagrex will be doing, in any event.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: I would also point out that there is another outfit called the Canadian Dairy Commission-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Yes, it's under criminal investigation.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -which, again, is in the international marketplace liquidating some of the surpluses which are generated as a result of the productivity of the Canadian farmer-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Why is the RCMP in there, looking at it?


Jean-Jacques Blais: -especially the milk farmer. As a result of its aggressive marketing, it has been able to liquidate large surpluses of powdered milk-and my friend, the Minister of Agriculture, will be able to support me in that-and other industrial milk products.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You've picked the wrong corporation.


Jean-Jacques Blais: In effect, it has been very aggressive in doing that, and it has liquidated those surpluses, which the Europeans have had greater difficulty in doing, and which, indeed, the Americans as well have had greater difficulty is doing.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, the CDC is so aggressive that it has had to have an Auditor General's audit, and it is being investigated by the RCMP. That's a great corporation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. That is definitely an abuse of the invocation of the point of order.


Donald W. Munro: The Minister has been abusing it. Tell the truth.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: What motion are you speaking to?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: May we have some order, please? The best discipline is self-discipline. I would invite Hon. Members to abide by the rules and traditions of the House.


Arnold John Malone: Ask Whelan to resign.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the interventions by Members of the Opposition will not be taken from my allotted time. I know that I am making some telling points because they are jumping up like jackrabbits.
June 7, 1983


Donald W. Munro: Telling what? Telling the truth?


An Hon. Member:: Like jackasses.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yes, perhaps. Maybe that is why they have to have their backsides refreshed from time to time.
I just hope that the philosophy which is being vented today by Hon. Members from the Tory Party who participated in the debate will be the views which will be advanced during the next federal election, because there is nothing that I would enjoy more than a repeat of the Petro-Canada debate. We know the exact result visited upon the Tories who were trying to defend their Government at the time of the 1980 election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: How many Liberals got elected in the West?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Having said that, it does not surprise me that the Minister of Agriculture has had a great deal of difficulty with Canagrex, because there has been a tendency on the part of the Conservative Opposition, the real Conservative Opposition, to react on most issues, as it is their wont, to react whenever there is an initiative taken to enhance our export capacity and capabilities.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It's raw socialism and you know it, J.J., and you're all for it.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, that has been endemic in the Tory Party since the national policy of John A. MacDonald. I would recommend to the hon. gentlemen opposite-


Carlo Rossi: Where are you going?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Right here. I won't be very far away.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -and even to the hon. gentleman who is leaving his seat, to read a recent book entitled "Not for Export" by Professor Glen Williams of Carleton University, wherein he explains the Canadian attitude toward export. The attitude of Canada and Canadian producers has been to satisfy the domestic market. We have had this particular weakness of not wanting to enter into the international marketplace. Indeed, we have suffered substantially as a result of that in the food producing sector. In effect, we are in a deficit position. We tend to export our agricultural products in an unprocessed form or after very slight processing. That has been our tendency because we have basically wanted to satisfy our domestic market. That has been one reason why we have experienced some huge deficits in the recent past in terms of finished products and manufactured products.
In effect, the attitude of the Tory Party vis-a-vis Canagrex is exactly that. The arguments which they have advanced are inaccurate. There were two very important amendments to Bill C-85 made by the Government in the committee with the expressed purpose of alleviating any fears that the industry might have regarding this important piece of legislation.
Canagrex
The main issue was the buy and sell provision. It was felt that this new Canagrex corporation would somehow compete with the private sector. We said time and again that Canagrex would be there to complement the private sector activity, not to compete with it. We are trying to introduce Canagrex in order to enhance the ability of Canadian agricultural producers to produce by providing them with an additional market. Its purpose is not to get involved in competition with the private sector. At no time has there been any indication of wanting to involve it in the private sector.
I happen to know of what I speak because indeed I run the Canadian Commercial Corporation through the Export Supply Directorate. We do not compete with the private sector. We are in the international marketplace complementing the activities of the private sector. I have asked the private sector to identify one instance when we were competing with them in terms of exports. Not once has there been an indication of any competition. Quite to the contrary, we have enhanced the ability of the small business sector in Canada and the manufacturing sector to enter into the international marketplace to market their goods. As a matter of fact, last year we increased the exports by 34 per cent to make over one-half billion dollars in exports from Canadian manufacturers. It is that sort of organization that we envisage with Canagrex, not a corporation that competes with the private sector.
There is nothing in this Bill to indicate that this company will be competing with the private sector. It is not in the tradition of Crown corporations in Canada to compete with the private sector. Of course, there are some minor exceptions to that rule. But they were introduced as a result of the Canadian Government and the Canadian people feeling that perhaps their participation in certain sectors was not sufficient to ensure that the national interest is protected.
The provisions of this particular Bill do not allow Canagrex to get involved in the production of food products or own land for the purpose of farming. That is clearly set out in the Bill. It cannot produce or get involved in the production of food.
Necessary changes were made to ensure that Canagrex will only act at the request of or in coordination with organizations, corporations or individuals who wish to take advantage of the opportunities offered under this legislation. Canagrex is saying that it cannot go out into the marketplace unless it is asked to do so. I should know what the Minister is talking about because that is exactly how my operation functions. We cannot go into the marketplace unless we are requested to do so. Sometimes I feel that this is a restriction, but nevertheless it is a provision in the Bill.
In effect, those fears that are manifested by Members opposite when talking about dark conspiracies and about the creation of Crown corporations that will somehow dictate to farmers what they should be doing in the marketplace are completely false.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Sheep, sheep.

June 7, 1983
Canagrex


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair has extended time to the Hon. Minister because of the frequent points of order. I would invite another Hon. Member to rise.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise this afternoon and speak on this very important Bill. I hope to return the level of the debate to some form of sanity, because while it has been rather interesting it has been somewhat disappointing to hear some of the ridiculous statements that have been made from all sides.
I was especially surprised at some of the comments made by my friend, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), who has since left the House briefly. He talked about the Liberal and NDP alliance. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills is a relatively intelligent person whom I know reasonably well. We attended French classes together for a number of months when I first came here. Indeed, I might point out that if my colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), was correct in suggesting that the Hon. Member is gearing up for a last minute bid for the leadership of his Party, I would suggest he has probably the third or fourth best capability of any of the candidates to speak the second language of this country.
Since the Hon. Member talked about the Liberal NDP alliance, I wanted to point out to him that during the life of this Parliament the Conservative Party has voted with the Liberal Government twice as often as the NDP has voted with the Government. Let me also point out the kind of legislation on which the Conservatives have supported the Liberals. They support the Liberals when it is in the interest of the banks in Canada, the oil companies in Canada and big business. When legislation deals with removing collective bargaining for many workers in this country how do they vote then?


Raymond John Skelly: Still with the Liberals.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Still with the Liberals. When it comes to removing clauses from Government legislation that remove collective bargaining for workers in this country, the Conservatives certainly do not vote with this Party in opposition to the Government. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills also said that we were selling out the West by supporting Canagrex.


Arnold John Malone: That is right.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I would point out to my friend, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), that this piece of legislation has the support of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which represents 300,000 farmers in this country. It has the support of the wheat pools in western Canada, which represent virtually every wheat grower in western Canada.
Who is selling out the West with this piece of legislation? Who has held it up for some three years now? The Conservative Party is selling out the West.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills, said that he was fearful of Canagrex growing and that it might become too big. What is wrong with that if Canagrex grows and helps farmers? Why are we here if not to help the people
of this country? There is no single group in Canada which needs help more than farmers.
I am perplexed over the position the Conservative Party has taken to this piece of legislation. Today they are attempting to remove the buy and sell provisions in the Bill. According to Conservative logic, they would set up a company like Air Canada then take away its right to fly.
Let me review the history of this Bill to see how it has progressed over the three years it has been delayed by the Conservatives. This Bill began rather innocently when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) asked for unanimous consent to waive the normal 48 hours' notice needed to introduce new Bills in the House. He wanted to bring it forward in order to discuss it with agricultural Ministers and representatives at an agricultural outlook conference in the fall or early winter of 1981.
At the time, the Conservatives greeted this Bill with enthusiasm. Indeed, the then House Leader of that Party, the now temporary, soon to be former, Opposition Leader (Mr. Nielsen), had this to say:
Madam Speaker, we on this side are delighted to give our consent to the introduction of an idea initiated by the Honourable Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) when he was in office. We in this Party express our gratitutde to the Minister for perpetuating the idea of the Honourable Member for Elgin in this legislation.
Actually, the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) at that time was not exactly correct in his comments on the origins of Canagrex. It was really the Ontario Federation of Agriculture that pushed to have an export agency for farm products created by the federal Government.
We in this Party have supported Canagrex since the beginning. However, we have been mindful of problems with it. We have been mindful of past abuses perpetuated particularly by the present Government. We have put in certain riders. We want to ensure that Canagrex really does benefit the farmers in the long run. One idea is that we insist Canagrex be controlled by the producers. It must be staffed by qualified professionals, not Liberal hacks. Canagrex must not get into the business of pushing inappropriate exports to the Third World that diminish those countries' abilities to be self-reliant. All of these concerns are matters largely of policy, not legislation.
I go back to some of the initial speeches in the House that were very supportive of this legislation from all three Parties when the Bill was first introduced. I am told that my friend, the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who happens to be my neighbour in Manitoba, was rather supportive of Canagrex and suggested at the time it would probably help a group of farmers in his constituency who were having difficulty selling plane loads of calves to the State of Israel. He looked forward to the establishment of Canagrex because it would help his constituents sell their produce abroad. At that time the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) criticized the Minister
June 7, 1983

of Agriculture for the fact that the proposed agency was to be given only a fraction of the budget and manpower originally proposed by the Hon. Member for Elgin when he was Minister of Agriculture. It was not until the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), one of the Bay Street boys, decided that this was a threat to free enterprise. It was at that point, when some of the big corporations that feed the Conservative Party, like Canada Packers, Northern Sales and other such corporations, got into the act, that the Conservatives suddenly did a turnaround on this.
Some of the overkill on this legislation has really been something to behold. We heard just a few moments ago from the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) who goes nuts over it. He has this fear that Canagrex will collectivize Canada's agriculture. He talks about a state monopoly for the import and export of agricultural products. This is absolutely looney, Mr. Speaker. I think probably the looniest statement that has come out in this debate came from the Hon. Member for Assinboia (Mr. Gustafson) some time ago. I am not sure when it was, but he made this suggestion:
Say that the president of Socialist International put out a decree that all members, the Communist countries and the socialist countries, only buy state-to-state. Would not Canagrex become a level to automatically eliminate any private trading company within Canada? In my opinion Canagrex will give the socialists and Communist world a tremendous lever.
So said the Hon. Member for Assiniboia some time ago. As The Globe and Mail said at that time, that statement took the level of debate to a new low of comedy in this House.


An Hon. Member:: Tory low.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are cutting me off. I think my comments should make it rather obvious that we are supportive of this piece of legislation and really do hope it works to the benefit of all Canadian farmers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It would be wrong for the Hon. Member to suggest that the Speaker is cutting him off. I simply inform him that his time has expired. The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons).


Mr. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to express my support for this Bill, because Canagrex is really the best thing that could happen to this country.

This Bill will facilitate the promotion-

This is just to show that some Newfies are able to communicate with Quebecers. When my good friend, the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), becomes Leader, he will need someone who understands French and can translate from French into Newfie.

This Bill will facilitate the promotion and trade of agricultural produce.


Donald W. Munro: And Liberals.
Canagrex


Roger Simmons: There is no sinister plan here. 1 say this especially for the information of my good friend from Capilano and of my good friend from Lethbridge-Foothills. There is no sinister plan here. You can search for it all you want. If the hon. gentlemen opposite want to know how sinister this proposal is, I will give them a clue. There is already in existence a plan equally sinister, equally diabolical and equally allembracing. It is known as the Canadian Wheat Board.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles James Mayer: How much wheat do you grow in Newfoundland?


Roger Simmons: That is the sinister plan. I am seeing firsthand what can happen when there is no co-ordinating strategy to promote abroad the produce from a primary industry. I am thinking of the fishing industry and the chaos in which we find ourselves in Atlantic Canada, particularly in Newfoundland, because of the absence of any co-ordinated strategy.
I say to my good friend from Vancouver that I do not expect a private importer to be excited about public exports, but I ask him at least to listen to what is being said because he may learn something, the real reason why we are doing what we do.
I say to him that there is a good parallel in the fishing industry where things would have been less miserable for the fishermen and the fish plant workers on the South Coast of Newfoundland, in parts of Nova Scotia, in parts of Quebec, if we had had the kind of co-operative marketing strategy being proposed under the Canagrex Bill. I cannot find anything especially diabolical or sinister about this Bill.
On the subject of the fishing industry, if I have one criticism with the Kirby Task Force Report that was presented some months ago, it is, it has been and will continue to be, that Doctor Kirby and his associates failed to bite the bullet on the important issue of export marketing. They failed to do what needs to be done in so far as the sale of fish products abroad is concerned.
The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) attempts, as he so often does, to spread great fears about creeping socialism, to connote and represent the Canagrex Bill as another power grabbing effort. I ask him whether he has not looked at the very agency to which I made reference a moment ago, the Canadian Wheat Board. Why does the Hon. Member not tell us just how much power the major food retail chains have in this country? Is that what he wants to happen in this particular sector as well? There are five major retail chains controlling 70 per cent of retail food sales in the country. Is that private enterprise at its best?


Arnold John Malone: So what?


Roger Simmons: I hear the Hon. Member saying, "So what?". I am against it, that is what. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Capilano should tell us about the four large grain trading multinational companies-Cargill, Dryfus, Bunge and Continental.

June 7, 1983
Canagrex


Arnold John Malone: So what?


Roger Simmons: Again 1 hear the Hon. Member. I know his Party has long been in the pockets of multinationals, but that does not mean that we have to be in the pockets of the multinationals. Thank God we have that great Crown corporation.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the Hon. Member would accept a question.


Roger Simmons: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Would the Hon. Member accept a question at this point?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I have very limited time. At the end of my ten minutes I would be delighted to accept questions for an hour or so.
Thank God we have that great Crown corporation called the Canadian Wheat Board. It was brought in by a Tory Government, albeit it was comprised of a bunch of Tories who had a lot more foresight than the modern Tories with whom we deal in the House. The Canadian Wheat Board was constituted by a Tory Government of former days. These Tories in their day gave the Canadian Wheat Board powers to buy and sell. In the words of Dan Morgan in his book "The Merchants of Grain", the Canadian Wheat Board is the most sophisticated grain marketing system in the world.


Blaine Allen Thacker: You should try living under it.


Roger Simmons: What are they against over there? They are against progress. We have known that for a long time. What in particular are they against?


Charles James Mayer: What do you know about grain?


Roger Simmons: They are afraid of the possibility that one day Canagrex will become as successful in its mandate as the Canadian Wheat Board has become in respect of its mandate. That is their concern.
Let us get back to the persons who will be involved in the operation of this agency. They will be persons who come from the farming community. What do the Tories have against them?


Arnold John Malone: They will be Liberals.


Roger Simmons: They will be processors, businessmen and professional people who have an interest in Canada and have Canada at heart. They will have expertise in the production, processing, shipping and marketing sectors. They will be Canadians working together as partners for the benefit of Canadians. I do not find that sinister. I think it is a good formula, and that is why I support it with such enthusiasm this afternoon.


Blaine Allen Thacker: You would support anything.


Roger Simmons: I say to the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) that I cannot support anything. For example, I cannot support his candidate for the leadership of the Tory Party.
Since 1971 Canadian wheat sales have skyrocketed from $832 million to $4.25 billion 11 years later in 1982, an increase or more than 500 per cent. How could the Tories possibly deprive other sectors of Canadian agriculture of that kind of export benefit?
The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills wanted to launch a fairly wide-ranging debate on Crown corporations. This is not the time to do that, but I look forward with enthusiasm to the day that he and I can debate that particular issue in the House of Commons. What does he have against the principle of Crown corporations? Is he also against Petro-Canada? If so, is he now articulating the latest position of the Tory Party that has been for Petro-Canada and against Petro-Canada? Is he for the great Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? Is he against the Canadian Wheat Board? Why did he not tell us how many subsidiaries of the Canadian Wheat Board there were? Why did he not take the time today to run through the list of subsidiaries of the Canadian Wheat Board? It would not have taken very long at all, and it would have been much more relevant to the item under debate now. He talked about the appointment of friends. I can only say to him that we on this side of the House have a nice problem in that respect. We find ourselves appointing friends to many boards. The reason is that we have so many friends it is difficult to appoint competent people to boards without appointing some of our friends.
Those poor reactionary Tories. Pavlov would have been pleased because they respond in Pavlovian style to everything. If we are for it, they are agin it. I invite them to put aside their partisanship and support a good Bill which will work to the good of Canadian agriculture in the years ahead.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to deal with one or two comments that were made by Government Members. A few moments ago the Hon. Minister said that we had $4.6 billion in export trade. Yes, but I add that we accomplished that without Canagrex. That was done by private industry, and that is exactly what we want to do. Also he asked why we were against export. We are not against export. We are not against an export agency. An Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party indicated that we were favouring some items to which we object. We are not opposed to exporting. We believe in exporting. We want to help exporting but we think it should be done through private enterprise. This Bill is putting another handcuff on free enterprise. This is what Government Members are doing.
Private enterprisers have put money into this area. They have been carrying out the export business. They have a lot of money invested in it. Now they will have to compete against Government money. Now they will have to compete against taxes which they themselves pay. They will now have to compete against that type of thing. Hon. Members of the Government and of the New Democratic Party think that that
June 7, 1983

is okay. We do not think it is okay. In a democracy Members should reflect the thinking of the people who sent us here.
The farmers I represent do not want Canagrex. I will voice their views whether or not Liberal or NDP Members like it. The misrepresentation from the other side of the House and from the New Democratic Party certainly indicates that they have never read Bill C-85.
One Minister said, "Show me where there will be any conflict with private enterprise". Well, why will this corporation purchase agricultural products and food products? Why will this corporation package, process, store, ship, insure, import, export or sell or otherwise dispose of products purchased by it? It is going into business against people who have invested money. It will use the tax dollars paid by these people to fight them. That is what the Government is trying to do. It has done it before. It will do it again.
I heard Hon. Members talking about the Alberta Wheat Board. The Alberta Wheat Board has done many good things, but it was not put in at the objection of half the farmers of western Canada. It was put in because farmers wanted a marketing agency. This Bill is going in with half the agricultural people of Canada opposed to it, with half the nation opposed to it. I have difficulty finding one person in Bow River who would support this Bill.
The Government wants to ignore their representations. They want to ignore them and tell them what is good for them. People from the cities and from the East want to tell western farmers, who spent their lives on the farm, what is good for them. They know what is good for them. They want to do their own marketing and to conduct their own businesses. This is why they do not want Canagrex.
The powers given in this Bill are something terrific. The over-all affect of our amendments would cure the problems. We want the Bill but we do not want the clauses which will ruin the industry. We do not want the clauses which will give the corporation the power, if some future Government wants to do it, to take over the entire food industry. The powers are in the Bill. All they have to do is to read them. They are tremendous powers.
I see someone opposite shaking his head. Let me tell him that I want to deal with one or two more points. The Alberta Report carried a story on May 17 entitled, "The Food Grab- Ottawa's Next Big Play". On the front cover of the magazine there is a huge hand posing over the farmhouse, the cattle, the hogs, the chickens, the livestock and the land. It is the great, big grab. There is power in this Bill for the corporation to take over a farm and to take personal property without even a court trial. That is what the NDP and Liberal backbenchers are supporting. If they do not think that is so, there is a section here which gives the corporation tremendous power to acquire by foreclosure, other proceedings or in any other manner, to go in and confiscate. It can take real property and any personal property, mortgaged to Canagrex. It can sell, lease or otherwise dispose of such property.
Canagrex
What kind of power do we want this outfit to have? Some farmer will not only have his house and his land taken away, but they will go in and take the jewels from his wife's neck. That is what it will do. It is going to take personal property.
Do Members opposite want those kinds of things in this Bill? That is the type of legislation they will pass. We do not want that and neither do the farmers. Someone mentioned Alberta legislation. The people of Alberta trust the Alberta Government. The people of Canada do not trust this Government.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the Hon. Member is referring to the section dealing with mortgages, is he now telling us that his Party has changed its mind on the ability of individuals to sign mortgages and to enter into contracts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. If the Hon. Member wishes to put a question to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), he should first inquire whether that Hon. Member will accept a question.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the farmer having his goods grabbed, taken away without a proper court procedure, confiscated. The power is in the Bill to do that.
With regard to free enterprise, it can pay to producers and processors a subsidy on any agricultural food product. They are going to pay a subsidy. They want to entice the farmers by saying they will pay them public money. This will affect those competitors who have been carrying out work in the export industry.
The Albert Report is noted for its accuracy and honesty. It shows the huge hand of the Government hanging over, something that will stick in the minds of those who read that magazine. They can buy, sell, store, process agricultural products, acquire real and personal property, taking it by foreclosure or any other proceeding. That is the type of thing we are trying to correct.
There is no use talking in this House. You cannot carry an argument here. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says, "Jump in the lake", the clones over there jump in the lake and the NDP Members are right behind them. They are all swimming in the same hole. Talk about the same bed, they are all in the same hole.
Macleans, our national magazine, said the same thing. They say that Canagrex can grow like a cancerous cell until it gets wide, sweeping powers which permit the actual control of the entire food industry. The power is in this Bill. Just read the clauses. The trouble with Members opposite is that they do not read the clauses. They just accept what the Minister tells them and vote accordingly. That is exactly what they do.
I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has come into the House for a change. I am glad he has. He should have been here for the entire debate. It is his legislation.

June 7, 1983
Canagrex


Eugene Whelan: Having heard you once, Gordon, I have heard you always.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The habit of this Government is to have only one or two Ministers here. They do not want to hear what the Members say. What this Minister is trying to do is to build up a little nestegg for himself. He is getting near retirement age. He wants a resting place that pays $100,000 a year. He wants to be the president of Canagrex.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Hon. Member would like to tell us what his nestegg is, with his provincial pension and his federal pay.


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


Gordon Edward Taylor: I earned mine. I did not accept a job that pays $100,000. What is more, I even paid some of the money back to the Crown. Do you?


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


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is all right for you to get up and start talking about pensions.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought the Minister was rising to make this point of order. Since he has not done it, I will. Immediately before the Hon. Member rose, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) imputed motives to the Minister of Agriculture. That is not permissible. Under the rules of this House it is not permissible to impute motives to another Member of the Chamber. He must withdraw that attempt to impute motives. I suggest that the Chair invite the Hon. Member to do that or else fling him out of the House where he belongs.


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


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if the Member thinks I was way out, he should look at the record of one of his own Liberal Members when we came into power. How much did he get paid to leave his job at Air Canada? How much public money did he get paid, money he should never have got at all? Another thing, the directors of this-


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I, as one Member of this Chamber, am not going to sit here and watch this smear job on the Minister of Agriculture who is doing his duty as the Minister responsible for introducing this Bill. What he does when he leaves this Chamber is his own sweet business. However, under our rules and our well established tradition no Member can rise in this Chamber and impute motives to another Member of this Chamber, Minister or not. That is what the Hon. Member for Bow River has done. That is low, even for him. I invite him to withdraw. I suggest to the Chair that he be made to withdraw. He cannot stand here and impute motives to another Member of this Chamber. With his long experience in the Alberta House and here, he should know that. I believe he knows better. I invite him to have the decency to stand and withdraw what he said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) claims privilege.
The Chair is of the opinion that that is hardly privilege. The Chair does not see in what way the remarks of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) hamper the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's in the exercise of his mandate as a Member of Parliament. In any case, the Minister of Agriculture is in the Chamber. The Chair has not seen the Minister rise and protest. The Chair must therefore conclude that the Minister of Agriculture does not in any way feel slighted. However, in the opinion of the Chair I thought we were doing rather well on Canagrex and the amendments up to that point in the debate. I invite the Hon. Member for Bow River to continue along that line.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, this Bill provides for a president and one or two vice-presidents. I am suggesting it may well be that the Minister may become the president. What is derogatory about that? That is what the Liberals do all the time, putting their own Members as head of things. Has it suddenly become wrong? I would not be a bit surprised if the directors were Mackasey, Buchanan, and who is the other fellow? Gillespie. I would not be surprised if they were made directors. The people of Canada would not be surprised. That is the kind of thing they do all the time. The Members' conscience is hurting him. I want to get on with Canagrex.
The farmers of Canada, including those in my constituency, do not like this Bill the way it is. If these amendments are accepted, it can become an exporting agency. Without these amendments, the corporation will have the power to take over farms and the food industry, becoming the master. The Government has done this in energy, it has done this in culture. Now it wants to do it in the food industry. What is the Government trying to do, make the people of Canada bond slaves? What kind of society is the Government trying to build? If it does not want to do this, why is it laying the ground work for some Government of the future to do it? That is what Canagrex is doing. The powers are there and no one in the Government can deny them. Read the Bill. Let the people read the Bill. Farmers have read it. That is why they are writing letters to me that say: "Whatever you do, stop Canagrex. We in the country cannot live under Canagrex."


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You, Mr. Speaker, commented that I was present in the House but perhaps did not raise a point of order or a point of privilege when the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) spoke about my intentions of becoming head of Canagrex and creating this body only for myself. Nothing is further from the truth than that. I have no desire to be the head of Canagrex although I know that I am fully capable of being the head of Canagrex. I know there are other people who are just as capable as I am. Publications in Alberta have said that the motive behind Canagrex is that I want a job for myself. That is not a fact. That is an untruth.
June 7, 1983


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make some brief remarks at report stage of the Canagrex Bill. I have been present in the House since two o'clock this afternoon and have been listening very intently to the debate. I would like to discuss Canagrex in the context of the Province and the area of the country which I have the privilege to represent. 1 might say, Mr. Speaker, that it is the only Province in the country where the primary industry of the Province is agriculture.


Arnold John Malone: That is false.


W. Bennett Campbell: It is true.


Arnold John Malone: No, what about Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta?


W. Bennett Campbell: But not the primary industry.


Arnold John Malone: Yes.


W. Bennett Campbell: Well, Mr. Speaker, then at least we can share in the industry. But I do want to comment within that context. I have listened very intently to the discussion this afternoon. Members of the Official Opposition have indicated to the House that the Canagrex Bill really sets out to do three things, two of which they can support, the third of which they have objections to.
The first objective of Canagrex is the question of promotion and marketing. I think that, generally speaking, most Members of the House can accept that particular objective. Coming from a Province as small as Prince Edward Island, I can say that within the Province there are numerous producers and quite a number of exporters who are not in a financial position to promote and identify markets for themselves, particularly dealing with the major export, that is, potatoes, and more particularly seed potatoes. Opportunities do exist for the export of these products to many countries around the world.
I am certainly pleased by the report that I have received dealing with trade surplus in agricultural products, but I am concerned that there are opportunities there which are not being taken advantage of. After eliminating wheat and oil seed from that surplus and dealing only with non-grain, what is left? We are left with a $2 billion deficit. This should indicate to all Members that there are opportunities which are not being taken advantage of.
Exporters and promoters in a Province the size of mine are in no position to travel to the Middle East or to the Caribbean to promote their products. They simply cannot do it. They cannot afford to do it. Yet the opportunities are there, so from my perspective I support wholeheartedly the promotion and marketing aspects of Canagrex.
Let us look at the financing aspect of Canagrex. If there has been a problem in terms of exports in many areas of the country, it has been the inability to put a financing package together. I will give you a very real example of this, Mr. Speaker. An exporter from my Province had the opportunity to make a sale of seed potatoes to a Caribbean country. He went to the banking system to try to put a financing package
Canagrex
together, and he was successful in doing so. But do you know what it cost the potato producers of my Province to do that, Mr. Speaker? It cost them eight cents per hundred above and beyond the going interest rate. Why? Because the country to which the product was exported happened to have a low credit rating. The additional cost of that interest charge was passed on to the suppliers, the farmers for that particular package. So here is an excellent opportunity for Canagrex to play an important role in exporting.
Dealing with the buying and selling aspects of Canagrex, there is no question that concerns were expressed about this. While I do not want to dispute any comment made in the House, I must draw something to the attention of all Hon. Members. With respect to the comment made by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) who said that Canagrex has been brought forward in the dying hours of the House at a time when closure is being invoked to force it through, I Would ask you, Mr. Speaker, when this legislation was first introduced in the House. As I recall, it was first introduced in December of 1981.


Gordon Edward Taylor: January.


W. Bennett Campbell: All right, January, 1982. So this legislation has been under discussion on a relatively ongoing basis for some 16 or 17 months. Yet it still has not gone beyond report stage.
Let us deal with the buying and selling aspects of Canagrex. Most Canadian Crown corporations have that capacity. The Hon. Member for Bow River can tell us that the Crown corporation in his own Province has the ability to buy and sell because there are situations when it is necessary for it to have that ability. However, to address that particular concern, amendments have been accepted by the Government. When can buying and selling powers be activated? They can be activated in only two instances. The first instance is when Canagrex is requested to do so by a developer, an entrepreneur or an exporter. The second instance is on a state-to-state package. Again, I-


Arnold John Malone: That is the point.


W. Bennett Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has said that that is the point. Let me give him a very excellent example of how Canagrex could have ensured an export deal for the Province of Prince Edward Island. Officials of one of the Middle East countries said: "We want to buy seed potatoes and we want to buy Prince Edward Island seed potatoes, but we will not deal with the individual seller because the package has been put together by the Department of Agriculture of our country and we would like to deal on a government-to-govern-ment basis." Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? The deal was never signed because the instrument to facilitate it did not exist.
How could this deal have taken place? Canagrex would act on behalf of the exporter. Canagrex would in fact buy the product from the exporter and sell it to the Government

June 7, 1983
Canagrex
agency in the other country. To me, that makes perfect sense. I find it very difficult to understand the objections of Members of the Official Opposition. I do not say this in any partisan or political sense. I am being very sincere in my attempt to understand the objections to the Bill made by Members of the Official Opposition.
There have been instances where valid concerns have been expressed and, from my perspective, those concerns have been addressed by limiting the powers of Canagrex to act when requested to do so and on a state-to-state basis. We in the House have been led to believe that, all of a sudden, Crown corporations are taboo. We have been led to believe that a Crown corporation is something that we should not entertain, something that should not be created. Yet where have successes taken place with in much of the agricultural sector? They have taken place in areas where Crown corporations exist. In the Province of Prince Edward Island, there would be severe problems in the dairy industry if it were not for the Canadian Dairy Corporation. In the hog area we have a hog board and it is a stable area. What do we have in beef, anything? No, we have problems. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, from my perspective, I fail to understand why, in the manufacturing area, we can have a Crown corporation which has worked extremely successfully in identifying opportunities for our Canadian manufacturers, and yet in our own area of agriculture, where such a great potential exists, we are prepared to say we should not do that. The private sector in many areas of agriculture is doing extremely well and we encourage it to continue on. However, let us not destroy the mechanism which can enable that particular sector of our Canadian economy, which has such great potential, to realize that potential and to realize it in a very real way.


Blaine Allen Thacker: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe there is some time left in the Hon. Member's ten minutes. I wonder if he would accept a question?


W. Bennett Campbell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder what the Hon. Minister would say to the evidence that the committee had that Industry, Trade and Commerce was providing some pretty good service in the area of assisting agriculture? It has the PEMD project which provides for specific project bidding, market identification, participation in trade fairs, incoming foreign buyers, export consortia. In short, we have a whole bureaucracy in the Government right now. As well, we have financing provisions and others in the Export Development Corporation which could help these people. Why do we need a whole new corporation with all these enormous powers, duplication and expense?


W. Bennett Campbell: Mr. Speaker,, I believe the answer to that question is a very simple one. The Export Development Corporation and Industry, Trade and Commerce have a very clear mandate to assist the manufacturer in our country to realize his full potential. However, I fail to see why we are against setting up a parallel operation which can help one of the areas where we probably have the greatest potential,
and that is in agriculture. One of the difficulties, as I understand, in the export development area, and in the mandate of Industry, Trade and Commerce, is that one of the areas which has been excluded is the area of agricultural products. Therefore, we have been having problems in that area in a very real way. All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that if Industry, Trade and Commerce can complement the thrust of this particular Bill, so much the better. Let us have an organization, however, which can direct its full attention, its full focus and its full effort to take full advantage of what I said right at the very beginning, the $2 billion opportunity which exists for agriculture in our country today.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell). However, I believe that in making his case he has downgraded or neglected-perhaps "neglected" would be the better word-the services which are already provided by the trade commissioners service which is composed of members of the foreign service who are posted abroad to promote and help market Canadian products. That has been their mandate and they have earned the respect of Canadian producers throughout the world. I have, upon occasion, acted in the absence of a foreign trade commissioner in my office, by performing in that capacity and receiving a load of cattle in Central America at a time when there was a group of Ontario cattle producers who had the initiative to carry forward and get their cattle into the Central American market. I went down there to help them. They did all the groundwork themselves. There was a bit of prestige involved, I suppose, by the Ambassador going out to help them off-load the cattle and get them to market. That is promotion, if you like, but that sort of operation should not be downgraded. That part of the work is being done in the agricultural field as well as in other fields.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today in taking part in this debate because it is not often that one has his comments cut off short at six o'clock by the clock on one day in one particular debate and is able to carry them on the following day in another debate. That is exactly what has happened to me today. I had about four minutes last evening, Mr. Speaker, in which to speak about the problems of responsibility of Crown corporations and the dangers which lie within them, and that is one of the elements in our debate today. We are talking about these corporations getting into buying and selling and that sort of thing.
I am sure that many of the Hon. Members on the other side of the House have not read this particular Bill and realize the dangers which lie within it. Nor, Mr. Speaker, does it appear that they have seen or examined in any way at all the proliferation, the spawning nature, of a Crown corporation once it gets into the hands of an ambitious bureaucracy which does not have to come back to the House of Commons or Parliament to account for its expenditures and its operations.
I wonder how many Members could tell me, including the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), how many corporations
June 7, 1983

are under the general direction, fully or partially, of Canadian National Railways, a Crown corporation? I just happened to add them up. I bet it would surprise the Minister to learn that there are 87 of them. This is one of the dangers, Mr. Speaker, of which we must be aware. CN has 87 proliferated parts. This is not Canagrex, Mr. Speaker, this is "Canaworms". And it is just twisting around like that, just waiting to get out and proliferate. The Minister knows that if you cut a worm, it makes two worms, does it not? If you cut the two worms, then you have four worms.


An Hon. Member:: No, you do not.


Donald W. Munro: Yes, you do.


Douglas Charles Neil: They are thinking of the wrong kind of worms. We know the kind.


Donald W. Munro: That is right, we know the kind. This is basically the problem which has me deeply concerned, the proliferation of this particular Canagrex or "can a worms" as I prefer to call it. I feel that we should also bear in mind that the buying and selling, and some of the other functions assigned to the corporation, could all too easily, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the Minister, lead us into the collective farm development, which, I hope, we all deplore in the Soviet Union and which cannot produce food at the same rate and as well as does private enterprise in Canada. I am told by someone who knows that about 22 per cent of the agricultural land in the Soviet Union is in the hands of private enterprisers, individuals; the rest is in the hands of the state. But that 22 per cent which is in the hands of individual enterprisers who are committed to their soil and get out of that soil what they know that soil can produce, produces five times as much as that 78 per cent of land held by people who have no interest in the soil. This is the sort of thing, Mr. Speaker, that we are facing down the road if this "Canaworms" gets to become law. This is the fear which Canadians have.
None of us knows how many Crown corporations there are in this country. I have run across four different numbers. I will wager the Minister of Agriculture could not tell me how many Crown corporations there are in Canada. I have read the Treasury Board report, for example, which recently came out, where 315 are listed. The Hon. Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist) asked that question on the Order Paper. The reply was that there were 179 Crown corporations. Now, was that a lie? It must have been. That or the respondent was ignorant. That is possible, of course. But the Minister signed the answer saying that there was only 179 Crown corporations. The Auditor General, on the other hand, on page 49 of his report of March 31, 1982, says there were 306. Then I see that Charles Lynch, in a report in The Citizen, on June 1, reckons there are 320. So we have 315 on the one hand, or 179, or 306, or 320. I do not think we need any more Crown corporations in this country under this Government.
Canagrex
Someone mentioned the number of Crown corporations under Petro-Canada. I started to go through that and it immediately seriously worried me. Then there is Canadair, which is now up on the block, if that is the right place. Well, it should have its head chopped off, having a deficit of $1.5 billion. It claims to be responsible and yet, it has affiliates; it has spawned six subsidiaries in one way or another.


Eugene Whelan: You tell me how many Crown corporations have been spawned under agriculture. Can you say how many there are?


Donald W. Munro: Agriculture is a growing industry and Canagrex would be a growing Crown corporation. The seeds are there.


Eugene Whelan: We could have used Orders in Council to set it up but I chose legislation.


Donald W. Munro: Oh, boy, talk about Orders in Council! He wants to know about Orders in Council. Did he realize that Clause 15 of this Bill says:
There shall be paid to Canagrex annually on the requisition of the Minister an amount of money appropriated by Parliament for that purpose.
That is only one of the ways it gets its money. In Clause 17 it says:
At the request of Canagrex, the Minister of Finance may, with the approval of the Minister, lend money to Canagrex out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund on terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council.
Where is Parliament? This is the danger of Crown corporations.


Eugene Whelan: The programs have to be submitted in advance to Parliament.


Donald W. Munro: In advance to whom?


Eugene Whelan: To Parliament.


Donald W. Munro: I wish the Minister would cite the clause. I would be glad to know. I have looked for that link with Parliament in this legislation. That is what really worries so many of us, Mr. Speaker. There is no direct line to Parliament in this legislation. Then I read in Clause 36(1):
In each financial year, Canagrex shall prepare a capital budget ... and shall submit it to the Minister for his approval and the approval of the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board.
That is fine, that is the responsibility of the Government to do that sort of thing. But, and here we were being completely misled not very long ago by one of the previous speakers, it says in Clause 36(5):
The Minister shall cause a copy of the summary of a capital budget approved by him to be tabled in Parliament-
Then we are told that the tabling of a report or request of that sort goes to a committee and is therefore automatically open to Parliament to question. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. The tabling of a report to a committee does not cause that committee to meet on that subject. That is what the Special
COMMONS DEBATES_______________ June 7, 1983
Canagrex
Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure ought to have done. Every report that goes to committee ought to cause that committee to meet, and if those provisions were there it would be a different matter, but committees do not necessarily meet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, this particular legislation has very obviously caused a degree of anger in the House of Commons which, while it surfaces on other Bills and issues, is not necessarily typical of all legislation. I submit to you, Sir, that imbedded in the antics which have taken place in this debate to date is the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with this Bill which has divided this country East from West, in which there is a difference in ideology, and that the Government is not paying attention to what that difference is. It is not making any attempt to rectify fundamental concerns of the people of one region of this country.
I submit to you, Sir, that the underlying motivation for this Bill is a drunken thirst for power. This is an attempt to gain control of a major industry, namely that of agriculture. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) mentioned that Prince Edward Island was the only Province whose primary industry was agriculture. I submit that almost all the Provinces have agriculture as their major or second major source of income. But that is beside the point. The point is: why are we opposed to this Bill?
Let me state to begin with that this Bill is not all bad. Few pieces of legislation ever are. It is not totally negative, but whatever good is imbedded within it is outweighed by Clause 14 which outlines the powers of Canagrex. It is excessive in the extreme. It is excessive to the extent it drives fear into one region of the country. That one clause describing the powers of the corporation takes up almost four pages of the Bill. Included in those powers, Mr. Speaker, are the following:
(a) purchase agricultural products and food products and package, process, store, ship, insure, import, export or sell or otherwise dispose-
That means, Mr. Speaker, that the Government now has everything it wants within the domain of agriculture. What we have left is free enterprise on agricultural labour, and state ownership of agricultural management.
It is not that the Bill is totally wrong. There are people who produce products such as white beans or sunflower products, commodities with relatively smaller production, who could benefit from a marketing agency, although I submit that one already exists within the domain of Industry, Trade and Commerce. But there are two things wrong with this Bill. The first is that it forms another Crown corporation. While I do not like that, I can swallow sideways and let it go down in a lump and then go home and explain it away to my constituents. But I can never sell to the people of western Canada the concept of a Bill which gives the Government of Canada the powers I have referred to in Clause 14. It means, Mr. Speaker, that I could go into the supermarket and, instead of finding the
traditional labels on our food, I would see the label: "Canagrex, it's ours". This is because the legislation itself includes the words, "the right to package". In the debate today, a number of Hon. Members have said, "Oh, listen, that is simply not the case. That is not at all what the Government is requesting. The Government has no intention of doing that. That is nonsense". That was precisely the same position that they took with regard to the questions involving Petro-Canada. When I find my notes in a moment, I will put on the record that little bit with regard to Petro-Canada. We will come to that in a few moments.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You've only got a few.


Arnold John Malone: I have found it right here at the bottom of my pile. Mr. Speaker, I know there is some question by the Chair as to whether or not we can make the analogy on Petro-Canada. I want to make it because I want to make it on the point that there is reason for concern. I want to quote what Donald Macdonald said back in 1973. He said that Petro-Canada would be about the country, soothing the fears of corporate Canada, that it would likely be nothing more than a small player in the domestic oil patch so that the federal Government could learn how the energy sector worked. He said it would be a window on the industry. What happened in 1974 was that it began the federal Government's existing, petroleum interests with $383 million. In 1977, Ottawa added to that, infusing another $155 million. It is still a relatively small corporation. By 1978, the pace had quickened. The corporation bought out Pacific Petroleum for $ 1.5 billion, with further federal corporation contributions of another $240 million in equity. It finished the year with a B.C. oil refinery, interest in coal, uranium and various other minerals, minority shares in two pipelines and 426 gasoline stations. Then, to bring us a little closer to the present, in 1981 the company bought Petrofina for $1.5 billion, financed in part by a 4 cents a gallon tax on all persons using gasoline, and including home heating fuel. At year's end, with reference to the corporation which was only to be a window on the industry to allow the Government to see how the private sector works, that being the corporate objective, it is into the private sector with total assets of $6.6 billion, 169 million gross acres, 5,800 employees and 1,500 gas stations. That is its window on the industry. Here we have Canagrex.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) should be protecting the individual pride of that one bastion of free enterprising people left in the country, the farm people of Canada who believe in pride, not only of their ownership, but also of their self management. He says that the Government of Canada, with these powers, can purchase agricultural and food products and may package, put the little labels on the can, and process, store, ship and insure them. That is what the Minister of Agriculture is doing. No one in the House, from any of the three Parties, is denying that we need to have a stronger effort in international marketing. I believe that to be the position of all three political Parties. However, to presume that the
June 7, 1983

Government needs those powers is absolutely folly. Furthermore, to stand in the House and to say, "But we will not use those powers", is not possible. I say to the House of Commons, there is no such thing in the world of politics as granting power and then not using it. If the power is granted, sooner or later the power will be used. That ought to be very serious indeed.
It is important that we underscore why the debate is in the House at this time. It is because the Liberals are where they are in the Gallup polls today. There is a pattern amongst the Liberals in the country-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I am just on page one.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We gave consent, Arnold. We wanted more.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that Bill C-85, an Act to Establish a Corporation called Canagrex, to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, is finally reaching the harvest stage. The Hon. Member asks who wrote it. I can tell him who wrote it. I did today, while I was sitting here, bored to death with the kind of speeches I heard from the opposite side. This is not the first time that I have stood in this House to speak on the subject of Canagrex. I raised it in the House two and one half years ago, to be exact. The Hon. Member who is asking who wrote it can check the proceedings as reported in Hansard on November 28, 1980, when this topic was raised by myself in the House of Commons. I spoke to it again on February 3, 1982 from the standpoint of promoting Canadian exports. I am pleased to take part in the debate on this Bill again today.
I was pleased that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) rose this morning on a point of order and clarified the difference between closure and time allocation. When does the Government use time allocation?


Mr. McKnight:: Every time.


Jesse Philip Flis: I think that when the Minister and the Government feel that there has been ample time to discuss the Bill in committee, ample time to debate a piece of legislation in the House, ample time to receive feedback from across the country and to hear witnesses before committee and, if the Bill is not going through its proper stages, then I think that the Government has no choice but to bring in time allocation. However, after 85 hours of debate in committee and in the House, I do not think anyone can complain that the Minister brought in time allocation.
Canagrex
In the British parliamentary system, when unconstructive and unproductive methods are being employed to hamper passage of important legislation before the House, time allocation is a correct and needed mechanism. That is why it was written into our Standing Orders. The British Parliament repeatedly uses it when all other avenues have been exhausted. This is the case with Canagrex.
I listened very carefully to the speeches this morning and this afternoon by the Hon. Members opposite. I was very interested by the comments made by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). I lost my respect for the Hon. Member a bit when I heard his comments-


Donald W. Munro: He speaks from knowledge.


Jesse Philip Flis: -in expressing his views this morning. He said that the Bill is nothing more than public mischief. He said that this is another Bill to "screw the West, and I quote him. There is no one more interested in Canadian unity than all the Hon. Members on this side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arnold John Malone: That's the joke of the year.


Jesse Philip Flis: I think that with the Tories lowering themselves to that kind of debate, I am pleased that the Government did bring in time allocation.


Arnold John Malone: Come West and say that.


Jesse Philip Flis: Then the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) called this a communist plot. He looked and pointed at me and said, "The Members from eastern Europe should know better". I would like to draw to the Hon. Member's attention that I am not from eastern Europe.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Who said you were?


Jesse Philip Flis: I am a Canadian, born and raised in Saskatchewan. I am a western Canadian, not an eastern European, but-


Gordon Edward Taylor: You sure don't show it, the way you vote.


Jesse Philip Flis: This, again, is the stereotyping of Canadians by Conservatives, "One is this, one is this and one is this", instead of considering us as being Canadians and parliamentarians in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jesse Philip Flis: I was also very interested in the words spoken by the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) when he referred to the Bill and said, "Another definite move toward state control".


Gordon Edward Taylor: Right on.


Jesse Philip Flis: The Hon. Member for Bow River says, "Right on". I would like to ask the Hon. Member and his Party

June 7, 1983
Canagrex
whether his Party was right on when it established the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Now you're going to change the subject.


Jesse Philip Flis: Was his Party right on when it established the Canadian National Railways?


Arnold John Malone: Right on.


Jesse Philip Flis: Was his Party right on when it established the Canadian Wheat Board?


Marc Lalonde: Yes.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: There is no comparison.


Jesse Philip Flis: What is the difference between the Bill before us today, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Wheat Board?


Gordon Edward Taylor: They didn't have the power to take over the farms.


Jesse Philip Flis: The Hon. Member for Simcoe South referred to Poland and to the U.S.S.R. I can tell the Hon. Member that I know of the seven million Ukranians who starved to death under the Soviet system in 1932-33, not even having a loaf of bread to eat. I can tell the Opposition about what is happening in Poland and the reasons for the Solidarity movement. I can tell the Hon. Member that the state farms, the kolhozi, in the Soviet Union, do not work or the PGR in Poland do not work.
The purpose of this Bill is to go the opposite route. Its purpose is to make sure that our farmers do produce more not only to feed Canadians but to feed people in other parts of this planet. Our country is blessed with the type of soil and weather conditions that enable us to feed not only Canadians but people around the world who are not as fortunate as us. This Bill will do nothing more than to motivate producers to produce more and to export.
It seems that anything the Liberals introduce in this House that will make the Government look good, the Official Opposition tears it down with statements such as state control, communist plot or that the Liberals are nationalizing everything in this country.


Donald W. Munro: Are they not?


Jesse Philip Flis: They are afraid that the Government will look good when this piece of leigislation gets through.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jesse Philip Flis: That is what they are afraid of. I say that this Bill is another move by the Liberal Government to assist the Canadian entrepreneur to seek new markets around the world. Canagrex will be the stimulus to more successful free entre-prise in the agri-food sector of our economy.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Is that why you want to confiscate the farms?


Jesse Philip Flis: If the Opposition feels that this Bill is moving toward state control, again I would ask them why their Government formed Crown corporations. Members opposite listed the various Crown corporations they are against. I ask again why they formed the CBC, CNR and CWB? Have the 12 Tories running for leadership, some of whom have dropped off, come out with a platform to ban the Canadian Wheat Board or the CBC? No, those Crown corporations are all right.
Let us look at the Canadian Wheat Board, a Crown corporation established by the Tories.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It does not have the power to take over the farms.


Jesse Philip Flis: Why did the Progressive Conservative Government give the Canadian Wheat Board the power to buy and sell when it was created?


Gordon Edward Taylor: It does not have the power to take over the farms.


Jesse Philip Flis: We are talking about the amendments and the dispute around the philosophy of buying and selling in this Bill. Let me ask again why the Progressive Conservative Government, in creating the Canadian Wheat Board, gave it powers to buy and sell while their amendments seek to withdraw the same powers from Canagrex?


Gordon Edward Taylor: It has no power to confiscate the farms.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary has the floor.


Jesse Philip Flis: I think someone mentioned already that taking those powers from Canagrex would be like letting a steer out into a herd of young cattle. Then the Tories would scratch their heads and ask why the stock is not increasing. Perhaps they understand that kind of language.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Dionne) tells me that all of the Opposition amendments were debated extensively in committee. They were extensively debated, and eight of the Opposition amendments add up to one thing-


Gordon Edward Taylor: You just read that page.


Jesse Philip Flis: Those amendments say to strip Canagrex of its power to engage in exports when so requested. Without that ability Canagrex will not be seen as an active, potent partner of the Canadian agricultural industry and would not address the requests of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture when they identified a need for "an agricultural trading agency to assist export expansion."
As the Minister has already stated in the Chamber, a number of provincial Crown corporations such as those in Saskatchewan, Quebec and Prince Edward Island, already have power to buy and sell and/or purchase property. Those powers have not been abused or misused by the Provinces.
June 7, 1983

Other countries who are major competitors have already acted to further their agricultural and food exports.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary but the time allotted to him has expired.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to ask if you have deducted the time for interruptions?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: An extra minute was allowed for interruptions.


Mr. Maurice Bossy (Kent):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Charles James Mayer: You are filibustering your own Bill.


Maurice Louis Bossy: I can assure you that I do not want to take part in any filibuster. I feel it my duty, as a representative of an area with some of the best agriculture in Canada that needs this export corporation, Canagrex, to help market our farm products, to speak on this Bill.
When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) introduced Bill C-85 into the House in December, 1981, I remember the favourable press that the idea of an agricultural export agency received. In addition, during the course of the debate which followed in the House, Hon. Member after Hon. Member stated his support for Canagrex.
I might just refresh the memory of the House with just a few of these statements of support. I know that much of this support came from Members of the New Democratic Party, but we also saw at that time support from the Official Opposition.
I know that the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) stated, as reported at page 14292 of Hansard:
The farm community too has waited a long time for this legislation.
And:
We agree that there are special needs for some agricultural exports which will require the full time attention and practical knowledge of people involved in the process at all times.
On page 14391 of Hansard, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) stated:
Canagrex is going to be another federal Crown corporation which will have some responsibility for the marketing of agricultural products. That sounds like a very good idea and it probably is. It will likely do some good in the marketing of agricultural products;
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) stated, as reported at page 14472 of Hansard:
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.
As reported at page 14483 of Hansard, the Hon. Member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff) said:
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.
All of this support came from Members of the two Opposition Parties. They joined the voices of many of my colleagues
Canagrex
on this side of the House who expressed full support for Canagrex and have urged a speedy passage of Bill C-85.
When this legislation first came before the Standing Committee on Agriculture last year, I had the honour to be its chairman and member of the Committee. The Committee spent four months studying the Bill and finally approved 14 amendments to the original 41 clauses. Members of the Committee heard and read briefs from most groups within the Canadian agri-food system and the vast majority expressed their support for Canagrex.


Arnold John Malone: That is false and it is wrong.


Maurice Louis Bossy: I must say at this point that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union and a strong plea from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the UPA from Quebec, all these organizations-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone).


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member now speaking does not wish to deliberately mislead the House. He should know that the Alberta Beekeepers' Association-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Bossy) has the floor. On what grounds does the Hon. Member for Crowfoot rise?


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point that well over half of the average agriculture associations of Canada are strongly opposed to this legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is a point of argument. The Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Bossy) has the floor.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is half the agricultural people of Canada.


Maurice Louis Bossy: Mr. Speaker, I might agree that many organizations are opposed, but many of these same people belong to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and this is a different membership. If the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is not really representative in the eyes of the Official Opposition, I do not know what better organization could represent the farmers of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Name all the organizations opposed to this legislation.


Maurice Louis Bossy: Members of the Committee also heard the agriculture critic of the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise). He has stayed away from debate on this Bill to a large degree. He was a former Minister of Agriculture. He stated his support for Canagrex by saying, referring to the 14 amendments, that these amendments are quite acceptable.

June 7, 1983
Canagrex


Arnold John Malone: So what? What does that mean? What is your conclusion?


Maurice Louis Bossy: Let me quote what the then Minister of Agriculture said in 1979. I am quoting from the London Free Press. The article said that the new agricultural Minister, John Wise, is ready to go "full steam ahead" on policies. This newspaper report states:
He will implement, with possible changes, the Agricultural Export Corp. announced by the Liberal cabinet during the election campaign as a tool to sell Canadian food abroad.
Further on in this newspaper report, we find this:
Concerning the Agricultural Export Corp., which would have powers similar to those of the Canadian Wheat Board, Wise said he would prefer it to be part of his ministry, but after talking with ministry officials he thinks that may be impossible.
It may well be that because of the business nature of that structure, it may be necessary to have a crown corporation. I won't quibble over that.
That is what he said.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: He did not say he would give them power. Read the whole story. He was not going to confiscate the farms.


Maurice Louis Bossy: In a further article that appeared on June 6, 1979, and Hon. Members must read the entire article, there is a picture of the then Minister with the headline "More agricultural exports planned". It is stated in the article:
Wise has said one tool that will be used to increase exports is the recently announced Agricultural Export Corp., which will sell Canadian foodstuffs abroad.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Without confiscation of farms.


Maurice Louis Bossy: I have another article here where it is reported that the Agriculture Minister stated:
The Progressive Conservative party campaigned on the pledge to concentrate on expanding markets for Canadian agricultural products and Wise says he wants to act quickly to complete efforts started by former minister Eugene Whelan to establish an export marketing body for agriculture.


An Hon. Member:: Very wise man. There is one intelligent Member on the other side.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Without confiscation. Why do you not tell the whole story? Take out confiscation.


Maurice Louis Bossy: I believe farmers, especially in the area of Ontario that I happen to represent, have asked me to convey this message to the House, that that corporation must become part of our trust to help agriculture and the farmer and not necessarily just the exporters of this country, which seems to be the support the Opposition wants to give strictly in that area.
Members of the Committee heard and read briefs from most groups within the Canadian agri-food system, and the vast majority expressed their support for Canagrex. I am going back to what we heard in Committee.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You have gone back a long way.


Maurice Louis Bossy: The Committee recommended changes, and as the legislation now stands Canagrex can only get involved in exports in co-operation or jointly with private trade or when it is acting as an agent of the Crown when dealing in state to state contracts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his allotted time has expired.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that time allocation was put on this Bill and in view of the ruling by the Acting Speaker on July 29, 1982, we on this side would like to put the argument that Motion No. 2 should quite properly be debated and voted upon because the Acting Speaker at that time indicated that subsequent argument could be put. We are prepared to do that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair faces a certain difficulty at this point. We are debating a group of motions which have been grouped for debate. They do not include Motion No. 2. After disposing of them there might be a very brief period of time before the limit of debate at 5:45 p.m. takes over.
If it is the wish of the House, the Chair will put the question on Motion No. 6 which we are debating now. However, there appear to be other Hon. Members rising.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we are finished with that first grouping of Bills and we are prepared to go on to Motion No. 2.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: From the Chair's point of view as long as Hon. Members are rising, it is very difficult to do other than to recognize them. In this case, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight).


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, if there was unanimous consent among all colleagues in the House to move along, some 12 amendments have been placed. We think under closure it would only be in the style of the magnanimity of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that we could move on to other Bills.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) is rising on a point of order.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Members opposite realize that the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) would have been here to present this motion on behalf of the livestock industry, but unfortunately his wife passed away today and he has had to rush away. We want very much, on behalf of the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat who has represented that industry for many, many years, to put this motion before the House so that it can be properly voted upon as the Bill is voted on this afternoon. I am asking for unanimous consent for that purpose.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 7, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 6. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 7. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 2 was originally moved out of order. We believe that there are precedents with which you will agree to indicate that this amendment can be put to Clause 2, which is the interpretation clause.
Because I think you can rule on it very quickly, 1 briefly refer to Bill C-176 which was debated in late 1971. If you look at the December 30, 1971 edition of Hansard on page Nos. 10895, 10896, 10944 and 10945, you will see that amendments were accepted to the interpretation clause which permitted the amendment to go forth. I think it is just that simple, and we ask for that ruling now.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to amplify very quickly what my hon. friend said.


David P. Smith: You are just trying to be helpful.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Right, I am just trying to be helpful to the Chair and to Hon. Members. The amendment of the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) was obviously to extend the meaning of the interpretation clause. The debate on the National Farm Products Marketing Act, which I think
Canagre x
Your Honour and other Hon. Members will remember was a very contentious matter both in committee and in the House, went on for ten months and was led by the eminent Mr. Horner, the then Hon. Member for Crowfoot, along with the then Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, Mr. McIntosh. As reported on page 10895 of Hansard, the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, Mr. McIntosh, moved an amendment to the interpretation clause which in effect had the same thrust as the amendment of the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat in Motion No. 2. At that time he moved the following amendment:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto, immediately following the word 'product' at the end thereof, the words 'but, for the purpose of any of the provisions of this act, shall not include cattle or calves;'
The point I want to make very briefly and succinctly, in view of the fact that the clock is ticking away, is that in the interpretation clause of Bill C-85 there are already certain items set out which are excluded, for example, fish and forestry products or by-products. The amendment of the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat does not add any new substantive matter. It adds to the exception.
I have referred to the precedent in the debate on the National Farm Products Marketing Act. I must admit that that amendment was accepted. The Chair may appreciate that it was not debated too extensively, but the interesting thing is that the amendment of the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek at that time was to amend the amendment in the interpretation clause to include cattle or calves. It was accepted and it was put to a vote. Certainly I think it is the most recent precedent I have been able to find. It happens to be right on point because it is the very same issue of cattle or calves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Deputy Chairman of Committees has already expressed an opinion on the matter. I would like to quote from a decision of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux as reported in Hansard on November 28, 1974. It reads:
It seems to me that an amendment which adds to the definition clause of a bill a definition which was not contemplated in the original drafting of the bill, thereby seeking not simply to clarify the definition section but to limit the application of the bill to the kind of activity that is defined by the proposed amendment, would go not only beyond the scope of the clause under consideration but would probably be outside the principle and scope of the bill itself.
In this case, the exclusions of fish and forest products are clearly of a generic kind. The attempt to exclude cattle, in the opinion of the Chair, goes beyond the principle of the Bill and introduces something substantially beyond the original intent in the drafting of the Bill.
That was the interpretation of the Deputy Chairman in the previous debate in the House. The Chair has heard no argument which would persuade it to change the position of the Deputy Chairman. Therefore I rule Motion No. 2 to be unacceptable.

June 7, 1983
Canagrex


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate point of order. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House so that the following motion can be included in the vote. It will not have any different result. It reads:
That Bill C-85, an Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 45 at page 11 the following:
"(e) buy, sell or otherwise deal in beef cattle and beef products nor any
product or by-product thereof".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has ruled that amendment unacceptable, and an amendment which is ruled unacceptable cannot be put to a vote.
It being 5.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, December 16, 1982, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the Bill.
The next question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker).


Blaine Allen Thacker: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-85, An Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be amended
(o) by adding immediately after line 31 at page 2, the following:
"(2) All directors, other than the President, shall have tenure for no longer
than two consecutive terms of office."
(b) by renumbering the subsequent subclauses accordingly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker).


Blaine Allen Thacker: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-85, An Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be amended in Clause 11 by striking out line 35 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"Council to hold office during pleasure for such term, not exceeding five years,
and one only renewal term of five years."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker).


Blaine Allen Thacker: Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-85, An Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be amended by adding immediately after line 27 at page 5, the following:
"(3) The salary, fees or other remuneration, and travel expenses and other
expenses shall be itemized for each director, the President and each vicepresident and shall be published in each annual report filed in accordance with
section 40 of this Act."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 13 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Rimouski-Temiscouata (Mrs. Cote).


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
June 7, 1983


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil).


Douglas Charles Neil: Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-85, An Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be amended in Clause 41 by striking out lines 9 to 15 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"Coming into Force and Expiration
41.(1) This Act shall come into force on the day immediately following the day it is assented to.
(2)	This Act expires on December 31, 1988, or on such earlier date as may be fixed by proclamation or a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons that is approved by the House pursuant to subsections (6) and (7) unless, before December 31, 1988 or any earlier date fixed by proclamation or any such motion for the consideration of the House that is so approved by the House, an Order in Council is made to the effect that this Act shall continue in force for such period of time as may be set out in the Order in Council.
(3)	A motion for consideration of an Order in Council referred to in subsection (2) shall be laid before Parliament not later than three days after the Order is made or if Parliament is not then sitting, within the first fifteen days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, and each House shall, in accordance with the Rules of that House, take up and consider the motion, and all questions in connection with the motion taken up and considered by that House shall be debated without interruption and decided not later than the end of the third sitting day next after the day the motion is first so taken up and considered.
(4)	If, at the conclusion of the consideration of an Order in Council pursuant to subsection (3), both Houses of Parliament do not resolve that the Order in Council be approved, it shall thereupon cease to have effect.
(5)	Failure of either House or both Houses of Parliament to resolve that an Order in Council referred to in subsection (2) be approved does not affect the validity of any action taken or not taken in reliance on the Order in Council prior to the conclusion of consideration thereof pursuant to subsection (3).
(6)	Where a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons, signed by not less than fifty Members of the House, is filed with the Speaker to the effect that this Act shall expire on a date before December 31, 1988 that is specified in the motion, the House of Commons shall, within the first fifteen days next after the motion is filed that the House is sitting, in accordance with the Rules of the House, take up and consider the motion, and if the motion, with or without amendments, is approved by the House, this Act expires on the date that is specified in the motion.
(7)	All questions in connection with any motion taken up and considered by the House of Commons pursuant to subsection (6) shall be debated without interruption and decided not later than the end of the third sitting day next after the day the motion is first so taken up and considered."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 70, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions.
Call in the Members.


Madam Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 6.
The House divided on Motion No. 6 (Mr. Schellenberger), which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 325)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Andre
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton) Beatty Blenkarn Bosley Cardiff Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West)
Baker
(Gander-T willingate) Beauchamp-Niquet (Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Benjamin
Berger
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hawkes
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Howie
Huntington
Jarvis
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Korchinski
Lambert
Lawrence
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Oberle
Paproski
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Roche
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Crouse	Lewis	ScottDantzer	MacDonald (Miss)	(Victoria-HDarling	(Kingston and the Islands)	SiddonDomm	MacDougall	SpeyerElzinga	MacKay	StevensFennell	Malone	StewartForrestall	Mayer	TaylorFraser	Mazankowski	ThackerFretz	McCain	ThomsonFriesen	McCuish	TowersGamble	McDermid	VankoughnetGass	McGrath	Wright-87.Greenaway	McKenzie	NAYS	Messrs.	Althouse	Blaikie	CampbellAnguish	Blais	(LaSalle)Bachand	Bloomfield	Campbell
Bockstael Bossy Breau Bujold Burghardt Bussieres Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova)
(Cardigan)
Chenier
Chretien
Coilenette
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cousineau

June 7, 1983
Canagrex
Messrs.
(Division No. 326)
++YEAS
Cullen	Harquail	MillerCyr	Heap	MunroDaudlin	Henderson	(Hamilton East)Dawson	Herbert	MurphyDe Bane	Hervieux-Payette	Nicholson (Miss)de Corneille	(Mrs.)	Nystromde Jong	Hovdebo	OlivierDemers	Hudecki	OrlikowDeniger	Irwin	OuelletDesmarais	Isabelle	ParkerDingwall	Jewett (Miss)	PelletierDion	Johnston	PennerDionne	Joyal	Pepin(Chicoutimi)	Kaplan	PetersonDionne	Keeper	Pinard(Northumberland-	Killens (Mrs.)	PortelanceMiramichi)	Knowles	ReganDubois	Lachance	ReidDuclos	Lajoie	(Kenora-Rainy River)Dupont	Lalonde	RobertsDupras	Lamontagne	RobinsonDuquet	Landers	(Burnaby)Eroia (Mrs.)	Lang	RobinsonEthier	Laniel	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)Evans	Lapierre	RossiFerguson	Lapointe	RoyFisher	(Charlevoix)	SargeantFleming	Lapointe	SavardFlis	(Beauce)	SchroderFoster	Leduc	SimmonsFox	Lewycky	SkellyFrancis	Loiselle	SmithFrith	Lumley	TardifFulton	MacBain	TessierGarant	MacGuigan	TobinGauthier	MacLaren	TousignantGimaiel	MacLellan	TrudeauGingras	Maltais	TurnerGourd	Manly	Veillette(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Marceau	WaddellGourde	Mass6	Watson(L6vis)	Masters	WeatherheadGray	McDonald (Ms.)	WhelanGuilbault	(Broadview-Greenwood)	YanakisMcRae	Young-148.Andre	Messrs. Gurbin	McKinnonBaker	Gustafson	McKnight(Nepean-Carleton)	Halliday	McLeanBeatty	Hamilton	McMillanBlenkarn	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	MitgesBosley	Mountain)	MunroCardiff	Hamilton	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Carney (Miss)	(Swift Current-Maple	MurtaClark	Creek)	Neil(Yellowhead)	Hawkes	NickersonClarke	Hees	Nielsen(Vancouver Quadra)	Hnatyshyn	NowlanCoates	Howie	OberleCook	Huntington	PaproskiCooper	Jarvis	PattersonCorbett	Kempling	ReidCossitt (Mrs.)	Kilgour	(St. Catharines)Crosbie	King	Roche(St. John's West)	Korch inski	SchellenbergerCrosby	Lambert	Scott(Halifax West)	Lawrence	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Crouse	Lewis	ScottDantzer	MacDonald (Miss)	(Victoria-Haliburton)Darling	(Kingston and the Islands)	SiddonDomm	MacDougall	SpeyerElzinga	MacKay	StevensFennell	Malone	StewartForrestall	Mayer	TaylorFraser	Mazankowski	ThackerFretz	McCain	ThomsonFriesen	McCuish	TowersGamble	McDermid	VankoughnetGass	McGrath	Wright-87.Greenaway	McKenzie	NAYS Messrs.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I had consultations with representatives of the Parties in the House and, in light of the fact there are many motions on the Order Paper, I would like to propose the following: That the recorded division we just had on Motion No. 6 will dispose of Motions numbered 1 and 8, and that this division will also apply to Motion No. 7 which disposes of Motions numbered 9, 10, 11 and 12, and further applies to Motions numbered 3, 4, 5 and 14.
In other words, Madam Speaker, what I am suggesting is that the recorded division on Motion No. 6 should be recorded in our annals as also applying to Motions numbered 7, 3, 4, 5 and 14. It is also my understanding that the Motion for concurrence will be on division.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the proposal?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, there has been a very serious breach of order in that for the first time here in many years we have seen the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) laugh.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crosbie:: I hope I never have that experience again.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on the motion of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that Bill C-85 as amended be concurred in.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, if the same recorded division could be registered in Hansard, we are agreeable to the matter going on division.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eugene Whelan: that the Bill as amended be concurred in.
The House divided on the Motion (Mr. Whelan) which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 331)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Anguish
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
B6gin (Miss)
Benjamin
Berger
Blaikie
Blais
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussieres
Campbell (Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chenier
Chretien
Collenette
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille de Jong Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-Miramichi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Francis
Frith
Fulton
Garant
Gauthier
Gimaiel

June 7, 1983
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Heap
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hovdebo Hudecki Irwin Isabelle Jewett (Miss)
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Keeper
Killens (Mrs.)
Knowles
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Andre
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton)
Beatty
Blenkarn
Bosley
Canagrex
Messrs.	Messrs.
Lapointe	Pepin	Crosbie	Hnatyshyn	Munro(Charlevoix)	Peterson	(St. John's West)	Howie	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Lapointe	Pinard	Crosby	Huntington	Murta(Beauce)	Portelance	(Halifax West)	Jarvis	NeilLeduc	Regan	Crouse	Kempling	NickersonLewycky	Reid	Dantzer	Kilgour	NielsenLoiseile	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Darling	King	NowlanLumley	Roberts	Domm	Korchinski	OberleMacBain	Robinson	Elzinga	Lambert	Pa proskiMacGuigan	(Burnaby)	Fennell	Lawrence	PattersonMacLaren	Robinson	Forrestall	Lewis	ReidMacLellan	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)	Fraser	MacDonald (Miss)	(St. Catharines)Maltais	Rossi	Fretz	(Kingston and the Islands) Roche	Manly	Roy	Friesen	MacDougall	SchellenbergerMarceau	Sargeant	Gamble	MacKay	ScottMasse	Savard	Gass	Malone	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Masters	Schroder	Greenaway	Mayer	ScottMcDonald (Ms.)	Simmons	Gurbin	Mazankowski	(Victoria-Haliburton)(Broadview-Greenwood)	Skelly	Gustafson	McCain	SiddonMcRae	Smith	Halliday	McCuish	SpeyerMiller	Tardif	Hamilton	McDermid	StevensMunro	Tessier	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	McGrath	Stewart(Hamilton East)	Tobin	Mountain)	McKenzie	TaylorMurphy	Tousignant	Hamilton	McKinnon	ThackerNicholson (Miss)	Trudeau	(Swift Current-Maple	McKnight	ThomsonNystrom	Turner	Creek)	McLean	TowersOlivier	Veillette	Hawkes	McMillan	VankoughnetOrlikow Ouellet Parker Pelletier Penner	Waddell Watson Weatherhead Whelan Yanakis Young-148.	Hees	Mitges	Wright-87.NAYS	Madam Speaker:	It now being 6.30 p.m. I do now leave the	Messrs. Cardiff Carney (Miss) Clark	Coates Cook Cooper	Chair. The House stands adjourned o'clock.	until tomorrow at two(Yellowhead) Clarke (Vancouver Quadra)	Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)	At 6.30 p.m. the House adjourned pursuant to Standing Order.	without question put,
Wednesday, June 8, 1983