1983-06-13

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-85, an Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be read the third time and do
pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak at third reading of Bill C-85, legislation which will establish the Canadian agricultural export corporation, Canagrex. Long awaited, Canagrex will assist in the expansion of agriculture exports, particularly in the non-grain sector where in the past number of years we have experienced about a $2 billion trade deficit. Canagrex will be a catalyst to assist growth in export areas long considered the domain of some of other trading partners around the world and we will compete in a progressive-excuse the word-


Mr. Epp:: Don't apologize.


Eugene Whelan: -and positive action, using all the tools that Bill C-85 provides. Canagrex will not-


Mr. Huntington:: Will not be around long.


Eugene Whelan: -and I want to repeat and emphasize this point-compete with Canadians. Canagrex will, however, within the context of the legislation, create an atmosphere for competitive growth on the export markets of the world for those products we have already identified as being "soft" in our over-all trade picture.
I am very disturbed over the statements made by the Official Opposition over the past few months, and again during report stage in the House last week. Still seemingly bent on creating a "bogeyman" out of this important piece of legislation, the Official Opposition has falsely claimed that Canagrex is a move by the Government to take over the agri-food industry.
Tying its argument into its stance on Crown corporations, the Official Opposition claims we do not need another Crown corporation and that through establishment of Canagrex the free enterprise attitudes within the agri-food industry will disappear. In one breath the Official Opposition says a loud
"No" to Canagrex based on its Crown corporation argument, and in the next breath the Official Opposition says you can have your Crown corporation, Mr. Minister or farmers of Canada, just so long as you remove the buy and sell powers contained in the Bill.
What are the Tories against, Mr. Speaker, Crown corporations?


Mr. Darling:: That is a good question!


Eugene Whelan: Is the Official Opposition really against Crown corporations? I do not really think so when you study the history of the Tory Party. My heavens, it was the Tories who began some of the most distinguished Crown corporations in this country.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Absolutely right.


Eugene Whelan: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was started by the Conservatives. The Canadian Wheat Board was started by the Conservatives and the Canadian National Railways was started by the Conservatives. The other day I heard one of the Members on the other side say: "Look at what the CN Railway has done". But he did not say: "We created it and we are sorry or we apologize for it", or anything else. He did not say that at all.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: This is your last one. Go ahead.


Eugene Whelan: No, the Tories are not against Crown corporations. They are against farmers in this country having the opportunity to become active players in the export game. What they are saying is that those farmers have no business in the export market. Even if they want to, they say: "We would like to deny you that right". Then they claim they are the friends of the farmers. I am surprised. I even know some of the Hon. Members' in-laws who are not of the same political faith that I am but are strong supporters of Canagrex, and they have told me what they have told their relations. Some Tories are only interested-and I am not putting them all in the same boat, but I know what some of them have told me privately-in maintaining the status quo when it comes to agri-food export development.
It is clear to me that the Tories are only interested in serving a specific sector of the agri-food industry when they request still further amendments on the buy-sell clause.
I have said many times in the past number of months, when the all-Party standing committee concluded its hearings on Bill C-85, there was consensus on the 14 amendments, and the

June 13, 1983
Canagrex
Tory Party's own agricultural critic, the former Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), who was on that committee, called the amendments reasonable. His words are recorded and he is a very reasonable person, of course. He realized the value of what the Bill would do, and he knows every effort was made by all Members of that committee to ensure Bill C-85 was equitable to all concerned.
He was particularly pleased to see us include the "at the request of' clause in the buy-sell portion of the Bill, and he expressed at the time that he felt it was something he could sell to his caucus. Being a reasonable person himself he figured the majority of the Conservative caucus feel the same way. Well, it appears he was not listened to, and if the Official Opposition had its way, farmers in this country would continue to lose valuable export opportunities and be made to sit on the fence.
I would point out, however, that Canadian farmers have never lost any freedom because of Crown corporations which operate under the authority of my Ministry.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is absolutely ridiculous.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the Hon. Member to find examples of when any one of those Crown corporations was used other than to help farmers. In turn, by helping agriculture and farmers it helps the total society.
Let me refer to a few examples. There is the protection offered by the Farm Credit Corporation. All of them are asking me to expand the Farm Credit Corporation to take care of long-term farm loans and mortgages which are needed because the private sector is not properly looking after farm credit in the country. Also we have the Agricultural Stabilization Board, the Canadian Dairy Commission and prairie farm rehabilitation. Farmers are free to develop their farms under these organizations, choose their crops, improve their efficiency and become the most productive farmers in the world.
I challenge anyone to find anything that this Minister or this Government has done which has taken away any rights from the farmers of the land. We have given the farmers of the land more rights than in any other land in the entire world. Let that be a known fact.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: And more problems.


Eugene Whelan: The farmers in the United States of America do not have the same rights as our farmers. The farmers in Britain do not have the same rights as farmers here. The farmers in France do not have the same rights. The farmers in the U.S.S.R. do not have the same rights. The farmers in Poland to not have the same rights as those here. They hardly have any rights at all there. We are saying that it they want those rights they can have those rights. There is nothing "back door" about Crown corporations. They were established by Acts of Parliament and they report to Parliament, the ones for
which I am responsible. No one can accuse me of bringing in Canagrex through the back door.


Mr. Taylor:: You are responsible for closure.


Eugene Whelan: Canagrex could have been brought in by Order in Council, if I had wanted to do it. 1 chose the legislative route.


Gordon Edward Taylor: What is the difference when you bring in closure?


Eugene Whelan: I am very happy about having chosen the legislative route.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Are you happy about closure?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Agriculture has the floor.


Eugene Whelan: No other piece of legislation in which I have ever been involved has had as much discussion as this since I have been Minister of Agriculture. It was before the Committee, before the House, before the Senate Committee on Agriculture. I have never seen that much discussion on any other piece of legislation with which I have had anything to do.
The Act to establish the agricultural export corporation is what is before the House. Hon. Members opposite continually point out bad things about Crown corporations. They hardly ever point out what the Auditor General said about this legislation. He said in his annual report: "I am happy to see that this Crown corporation will be the first". Afterwards when I asked him why he said that, he said it was because it was the first the Auditor General could go in and review completely at any time. He said: "Mr. Whelan, it is not only a first in Canada for the federal Government but it is a first for the Provinces. There is no other free country in the world which allows that of the Auditor General and what you are going to do with Canagrex to protect the public interest". How often do they report that; how often do they say that?
Then there was an amendment brought in by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), an NDP Member. He made a suggestion which the committee and I accepted. When they talk about the powers to buy and sell, other Provinces with Crown corporations have the power to buy and sell. For instance, in Alberta they have the power to buy and sell. They said that they could not even operate with their cattle sales agency if they did not have the power to buy and sell.


Gordon Edward Taylor: They did not bring it in by closure in Alberta.


Eugene Whelan: Certainly not this Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Did you ever hear of free speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Agriculture has the floor.
June 13, 1983


Eugene Whelan: No one on this side of the House, not this Minister of Agriculture, wants to set up any Crown corporation which is not answerable.
The Auditor General investigated the Canadian Dairy Commission. I asked him to do that. I had to ask him to do that because he does not have the authority to do it unless the Minister asks him. I asked him to review the operations of the Canadian Dairy Commission. He found some fault with it. I challenge anyone on either side of the House to point to any private corporation or Crown corporation and say that it is perfect. No such thing exists, as far as that goes. Even as well as I run the ones for which I am responsible, I would not say that they are perfect because I am not perfect myself.
It is a cop-out for Members opposite to accuse Crown corporations of fostering socialism and to suggest that same kind of philosophical free enterprise will solve all our problems. That kind of enterprise has been nothing more than philosophical for generations. Members opposite know that as well as anyone. Otherwise Alberta would be served by a private telephone company instead of a public one, Ontario residents would buy their liquor from private dealers instead of a Government-owned liquor control board operated store, and Quebec residents would buy their electricity from private power companies instead of Hydro-Quebec.
Crown corporations have been set up to deal with special needs. Why do we not recognize that? All Governments in Canada have recognized that special needs exist and that they have a responsibility as the elected representatives of the people to see that those needs are met. That is what we are doing here. Sometimes Governments have been able to provide assistance to private industry to meet the need. Where that has not been possible, the Crown corporation has proved to be an ideal way to solve the problem.
Setting up Government agencies to meet the public needs that are not being served by the private sector is not unique to Canada. Nearly every Government in the world does that; yes, even the great free enterprise Government to the south of us in the United States of America does that. Check what it has done.


Gordon Edward Taylor: They don't bring in closure.


Eugene Whelan: They do not have to bring in closure because they have a more responsible House, with rules under which you cannot do the same things that can be done here. We never brought in closure.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You brought in closure.


Eugene Whelan: The Member keeps using the word "closure". We brought in time allocation. Closure means just what it says-bang, closed, a one-day debate, a vote by 1 a.m. the next morning. Time allocation in the Mother of Parliaments under Her Majesty is used almost every day. They have a business committee of the House. They do that in a gentlemanly way.
Canagrex
If there is anything unique about Canada's Crown corporations, it is their effectiveness in carrying out their responsibilities and their accountability to Parliament. We have a proud record. Let us look at some that we have right here in this capital. Anyone who looks down the list of Crown corporations and evaluates what they have done will have to admit their effectiveness.
There is a Crown corporation which handles museums in this country. Look at the magnificent job the National Capital Commission has done in developing Ottawa, Hull and the surrounding area. The National Research Council has a worldwide reputation. You must also look at the role of the Canada Council in promoting the arts. These corporations are outside of my territory a bit, but I am well aware of them, as are Members opposite. Would they want to destroy those Crown corporations? They have the power to buy and sell the National Capital Commission. In a farm magazine I read this morning, it stated that the ploughing match will be held in this area in late September. The article brags about the green belt which the National Capital Commission has preserved around this city. That has been tremendous for this city. It is a Crown corporation which kept this belt around the city. Would Members opposite have the nerve to say to the Members of Parliament from the national capital area that they want to abolish the National Capital Commission and set up something different? I would dare them to do that.
Canagrex will enable Canada for the first time to deliver a co-ordinated approach to export marketing in this country, something that we have never had. It will provide new opportunities for exporters, the traditional trader as well as the newcomers to the export market field. What all of this means is increased dollar gains on international markets for Canada and increased job opportunities at home. Regardless of what anyone says, it means jobs. Under our agri-food strategy, we can see that in the next 15 years we will be providing 150,000 to 200,000 new jobs.
I believe that one of the most exciting aspects of the Canagrex legislation is that it will facilitate the entry of new exporters, thereby allowing for greater diversity of Canadian agri-food products on the export market. Through the creation of Canagrex, doors will open to potential exporters, big and small, which for many years have remained closed. Canada's potential in agri-food export marketing, while not unlimited, certainly has not been tapped to its fullest. We have the resources in the country to enable us really to begin to do a job in an area once considered too tough to conquer. It is a matter of knowing what our true potential really is and then setting our goals and coming up with an effort that is tough for the competition to beat.
I find it simply amazing that there is still concern that the federal Government is creating an agent that will take over the entire agri-food industry. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I repeat nothing, and one only needs to read the

June 13, 1983
Canagrex
legislation to realize that that is not the intent of the legislation, Mr. Speaker. Its express purpose is to assist export expansion and nothing more. Canagrex will act as a facilitator to the agricultural export industry.
Some may be surprised by the people who are ready for this legislation and want to work with it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Then why do you have to use closure?


Eugene Whelan: We are not trying to take business away from the private trade, as some have suggested. We want private enterprise to grow and to continue to play its historical and important role in the development of Canada's export trade. If the remainder of our exports are compared with our total imports, it can be seen that there was a non-grain agricultural trade deficit of about $2 billion. Canada has the resources to do much better than that, Mr. Speaker.
The key to generating increased agri-food production is to improve market development and Canagrex will play a vital part in that development. Nowhere is Canagrex given monopoly power over any commodity. Its powers can only be used in conjunction with private trade to facilitate export. It cannot be involved, as was said here the other day, in putting little cans that say "Canagrex" on the walls of the supermarkets in Canada. Any person with common sense who reads the legislation can see that it is that plain. The amendments have been made in a way that will not allow that to happen.
Cries of a takeover conspiracy by the opponents to Bill C-85 are the most absurd cries I have ever heard.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You deny us a right even to speak on it.


Eugene Whelan: Those opponents are selfishly trying to destruct an export mechanism that the majority of the industry has requested for years.
Members of the Official Opposition know that they have not fairly addressed a recognized problem when they criticize this legislation. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, with its membership of over 200,000 Canadian farmers, want this Bill. It is a producers' Bill and producers have every right to be players in the agricultural export world. To deny them that right is undemocratic because Canadian farmers rely heavily on exports. They rely on exports more than any other group of farmers in the world.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Canadian farmers do not want it.


Eugene Whelan: Upwards of 50 per cent of Canadian farmers' income comes from export while approximately 30 per cent of American farmers' income comes from export. It can be seen how important export is to farmers in the country. It can be understood why such a healthy agricultural industry has been built over a period of time within our cold, northern hemisphere climate. At one time the geographical location of Canada led many people to say that it would be impossible to develop an agricultural industry in the country. We have developed one, Mr. speaker, that is the envy of the world. Studies have shown that while as a nation we have taken positive steps in agricultural export trading over the years, there is still a need to diversify the commodities we offer on
world markets. For this reason, and as a means of focusing attention on the Canadian agricultural trade effort, the Canagrex legislation is timely.
When reading Bill C-85, it can be clearly seen that Can-garex's powers to buy and sell can only be exercised in relation to its purposes, which are to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural products subject to the following limitations: Canagrex can only engage in the export of agricultural products when invited to enter into ventures jointly or in co-operation with, or at the request of, Canadian companies, co-operatives, marketing boards, associations, individuals carrying on business in Canada or contracts with foreign Governments.
Second, the power to purchase, lease or otherwise acquire and hold real property for actual use by Canagrex in the operation and management of its business does not, Mr. Speaker-and I must repeat, does not-include power to purchase, lease or otherwise acquire real property for the production of fruit, forage, grain, vegetables or other crops, the raising of cattle, poultry, sheep, swine or other livestock or the processing of any agricultural or food product. Those limitations are as clear as a bell.
Those amendments were made and the Hon. Member for Elgin said that they were reasonable. He said: "The Minister has been more flexible than I expected him to be". This is on the record. Moreover, on the criticism of Canagrex's power to enter into joint ventures with the private trade and the farm organizations-


Gordon Edward Taylor: You know not what you do.


Eugene Whelan: You can see how democratic the Opposition is being, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We did not bring in closure. You brought in closure, not us.


Eugene Whelan: We brought in time allocation. Every democratic Parliament in the world accepts time allocation. It is a good thing to deal with legislation. Hon. Members opposite want a form of anarchy.
I should like to note that a number of provincial Crown corporations, such as those in Saskatchewan, Quebec and Prince Edward Island, already have the power to buy and sell. In Alberta they have the power to buy and sell, to purchase property and do whatever they want.


Gordon Edward Taylor: They don't bring it in by closure.


Eugene Whelan: The federal Government, under the Agricultural Products Board Act has had the power to buy and sell since 1952. I would challenge any Member in the House to find out when this Act was used by any Minister of any political stripe to harm agriculture. It has always been used to assist agriculture. We are using it in Ontario at the present time to buy up tomatoes and surplus canned products. We are putting $8 million into that program. We are using it in British
June 13, 1983

Columbia and have used it practically every Province in Canada-but at their request. It was at the request of the Canadian food processors of this country that we used that power.


Gordon Edward Taylor: But you have to be Liberal to get it.


Eugene Whelan: The federal Government has had these powers.
1 would challenge the Hon. Member to find any Conservative Minister who has abused the powers vested in him to administer the Agricultural Products Board Act. It has never been abused. It has never been used to hurt but always to help. Hon. Members opposite should study a little history.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: What about the national energy policy? It is just a boondoggle.


Eugene Whelan: The power to buy and sell is in keeping with standard business practices. A necessary tool of Canagrex is properly to serve the agricultural export industry.
As a point of information, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to what Mr. Tony Saretsky of the Alberta Canada All Breeds Association said when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture on May 12, 1982. Responding to a Committee member, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), Mr. Saretsky said his association had the power to buy and sell. Imagine that, in Alberta, Mr. Speaker. He said he could not operate if he did not have the authority to buy and sell, that he could not work until he got that authority. Is the power to buy and sell called free enterprise when it is in Alberta and when the federal Government gives the authority to join together to buy and sell to all the Provinces that do not have the resources that Alberta has, is that socialism? Is it free enterprise when it is provincial? I do not understand that philosophy and I do not think anyone else does Mr. Speaker.
As was pointed out during that stage, what was most interesting was the fact that Mr. Saretsky indicated to the Committee that originally his association did not have the power to buy and sell. The full text of his statement may be found on page 28, Issue 67 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
1 might add, Mr. Speaker, that the power to buy and sell under the Canagrex legislation is not going to be directed at traditional export traders of agricultural products in this country. In fact, although Hon. Members doubt this, many Hon. Members and many farm leaders have said: "As long as Whelan remains Minister of Agriculture, we do not have to worry about the legislation." It is there to ensure that Canagrex will be able to respond to any situation which might arise.


Gordon Edward Taylor: No other Minister of Agriculture in Canada would bring in closure.


Eugene Whelan: Canadian farmers see the wisdom of an agency that would tie together the export practices of the public and private sectors and strengthen our thrust into foreign markets. Other countries are doing it so why should the Canadian
Canagrex
agricultural industry not have the same kind of tools that other countries have to ensure that we do not lag behind?
It is interesting to note that while Canagrex was being discussed, developed, amended and politicized, the United States increased its capacity to deal on the export market through passage of the Export Trading Act. It never had to use time allocation because it saw the need, charged ahead and did it.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: But the Members designed it, not the bureaucrats.


Eugene Whelan: President Reagan signed the Act into law on October 8, 1982, giving the American agricultural industry yet another tool to help capture agri-food markets around the world. The purpose of the new law in the United States is to stimulate U.S. exports by facilitating export trading companies, export trade associations and more export trade services in general.
In Great Britain a couple of months ago, just before Mrs. Thatcher decided to call an election, they established a law called "Food From Britain" to establish a new marketing organization whose prime function will be to help co-ordinate and promote marketing initiatives throughout Britain and the world.
For those reasons and the fact that other countries such as Israel, France, Germany and Australia all have comprehensive export trading and promotional mechanisms, it is important for Canada to act.
I am pleased with and proud of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, because it is what the majority of farmers in this country asked for. I am pleased because producers have had a recognized need addressed positively with this legislation. They now have the needed tool to assist expansion of agri-food products.
I am also proud, Mr. Speaker, because I know of the long and dedicated hours so many people have given to the drafting of this Bill. One person I would particularly like to pay a compliment to is Dr. Dennis Ware who, while attending a conference in Europe on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, suffered a heart attack. Dr. Ware is a most dedicated civil servant and his team at Agri-food Canada unselfishly gave of their time and their talents to ensure that this legislation was written as equitably and as responsive as is humanly possible. I worked with Dr. Ware for months. Some of the other Hon. Members know him also. He is home in Ottawa now convalescing. There is no more dedicated person and no more serious and honest Canadian than this man, and he comes from western Canada, British Columbia. He saw the need because he understands the world situation. He was the person with whom we all worked. The former Minister of Agriculture on the other side of the House worked with him also, and he knows of what I speak.

June 13, 1983
Canagrex
What is currently paramount in agri-food trade application for Canada is that we do have the necessary facilitators in place to ensure Canada can do the best job possible, to work with, to assist, to facilitate. That is how Canada was built, not by-no, 1 will not say what I was thinking. Canagrex will be one of those facilitators, Mr. Speaker.
In a spirit of co-operation and exercising the greatest planning and care, I am very optimistic that Canadian agrifood export marketing has a bright future to look forward to. We know that by the respect we have built over a period of years around the world and by the relationship which our farmers have adopted with many, many different peoples around the world. Our farm organizations do not live under a little umbrella or under a basket. They recognize what is going on in the rest of the world. They are the ones who asked for this legislation. They are the ones who thought up this legislation. We promised this legislation in two election campaigns. It has been delayed in this House.
Mir. Taylor: They did not ask for closure.


Eugene Whelan: I am not ashamed one bit to bring in time allocation.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are proud of closure.


Eugene Whelan: Time allocation is something which the Mother of Parliament uses practically every week, if not every day, in the House of Commons procedures in Great Britain. It recognizes that it is an important tool to make sure that Parliament works.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Parliament working under closure stops Parliament from working.


Eugene Whelan: Some Hon. Members here have used the word "closure", and they continue to use the word "closure", which is not accurate, Mr. Speaker. It is dishonest as far as I am concerned. After some 85 hours of debate in committee and in the House, and after the Senate holding hearings for nearly half that many hours, to say we are putting in closure is false, false, false. When we say "time allocation", in essence, what we are saying is: "The people have asked for this. The majority of them want this. It is time we quit talking about it and put it into action."


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Neil:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to put to the Minister. I understand we ask questions. I have been in the House for about 11 years. During that time I have served continuously on the Agriculture Committee and I found it to be a very co-operative Committee, particularly in the earlier years. Hon. Member from all sides of the House were doing their utmost to do their best for agriculture. However, in the last two or three years, I have seen a certain stubbornness develop on the part of the Minister.


Eugene Whelan: Where is the question?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He does not have to ask a question. He is making a comment.


Douglas Charles Neil: The Minsiter had better read the rules, Mr. Speaker. I can make both comments and ask questions, and I am coming to my question. I said that in the last two or three years I have detected a certain stubbornness on the part of the Minister in refusing to co-operate with the members of the Agriculture Committee to do what is best in the interests of the producers of Canada.
During the Committee hearings we talked about the part which Industry, Trade and Commerce plays in our export trade. We talked about the part which people in External Affairs play throughout the world in exports. We asked to have representatives from those Departments brought to that Committee for the purpose of discussing with them the effectiveness of what they were doing, in order that we could determine whether or not we needed Canagrex, whether the power should go to IT&C or External Affairs, or whether IT&C and External Affairs power should come to Canagrex. Can the Minister tell the people of this country why he refused to allow witnesses from those two Departments to appear before the Committee in order to let the Committee have the full story so that they could make a decision as to what was best for the producers of this country?


Eugene Whelan: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything to say about the people from Industry, Trade and Commerce, External Affairs, or anyone else appearing before that committee. The Hon. Member cannot find anything in the records to show that I stopped them from coming before the Committee. He is putting something on the record here today which is just not fact. Those people are under another Ministry; they are not under the Ministry of Agriculture. This Bill is being sponsored by the Minister of Agriculture. The opportunity to question them about what they do is when that Ministry's estimates are before the committee responsible for hearing those estimates at that time.
When the Hon. Member says this Minister is stubborn, inflexible, refusing to co-operate, I ask you to consider this little Bill of 41 Sections, which has had 14 amendments, quite a few of which were put forward by the Opposition and accepted by us. The agriculture critic put those amendments before the Committee and we said they were good. The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) is disagreeing with his official agriculture critic because the records show what the Hon. Member for Elgin said at that time. He more or less acted surprised that I did accept the amendments and so on; he went that far. He said I was being quite reasonable and responsible. Yet the Hon. Member says I am being irresponsible and stubborn.
I was chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Speaker, when it had 45 members. I ask the Hon. Member to look back and see how well it was run when it had 45 members. It was a well run committee. We got along with Members from all the Parties. When I said to the other Parliaments of the world that we had 45 members on the Agriculture Committee, they said
June 13, 1983

it was unbelievable, how did I make it work? The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw did recognize it worked and that there was a feeling of co-operation and a desire to do things to help agriculture in this country.
The Hon. Member says I am responsible in the last three years for this feeling disappearing. I say to him he must share the responsibility because Hon. Members opposite are the ones who politicized Canagrex. When it was brought into the House, the official Leader of the Opposition, who can sit in the House at the present time-he was House Leader at that time-said; "We welcome this legislation because it was thought up by the Hon. Member for Elgin". I believe he said something like that; I may be a little inaccurate. I see the Hon. Member for Elgin just about ready to jump up on a point of order. However, he did say "We welcome this legislation", and the verbiage was something like "Because it was ours". The records are there, Mr. Speaker, for you to see. 1 am sure some of my colleagues will put on the record later word for word what was said. I believe the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Bossy) put on the record the interview of the Hon. Member for Elgin when he was Minister of Agriculture, or before he was Minister of Agriculture, talking about Canagrex, about what he was going to do with it and how he was going to make it work. It is all in the records, Mr. Speaker. But I am the one who is supposed to be stubborn?
I find it confusing, Mr. Speaker, to see Hon. Members opposite changing their minds. I find it confusing when I hear the Hon. Member still talking from the back benches over there, and that is probably where he will talk from for years and years, from the back bench. He refuses to recognize that in his own Province of Alberta they have Crown corporations which have the power to buy and sell.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We did not bring them in by closure.


Eugene Whelan: The Hon. Member calls that free enterprise. They have a banking system. They have an airline system. They own half of the land and they own pretty near all of the resources. He calls that the free enterprise system. The most socialized Province in Canada is Alberta.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We did not bring them in by closure.


Eugene Whelan: Saskatchewan is like a little bitty chicken alongside of Alberta, as far as that goes. When the Hon. Member talks about free enterprise, let him look in his own House. He was partly responsible for that at one time in Alberta, perhaps not for everything that they did when he was in the Government of Alberta, but 1 studied some of these things and he never once tried to squash, according to the records I have seen, a Crown corporation in Alberta. He never once tried to do that kind of thing.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We did not bring them in by closure.


Eugene Whelan: He let them grow while he was in Alberta. The Minister of Agriculture of Alberta has a Crown corporation which can buy and sell.
Canagrex


Gordon Edward Taylor: On a point of order, the man is telling complete lies and he should know it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Cousineau:: Withdraw!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that he has used an unparliamentary term and I invite him to rephrase his remarks.


Gordon Edward Taylor: What the Member has been saying is completely untrue. Completely untrue and he knows it. He does not know a thing about Alberta when he calls it socialism.


Eugene Whelan: I rise on a question of privilege, because the Hon. Member did not withdraw what he has said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has withdrawn his remarks.


Eugene Whelan: No, he did not say he withdrew the remarks. He said it was completely untrue and I say what I said is true.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In the judgment of the Chair the Hon. Member has reconstructed his remarks in such a way as to be parliamentary.


Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would agree we have just witnessed another spectacle of ministerial misunderstanding and misinterpretation, a great deal of ministerial political mischief, and indeed ministerial garbage. There is certainly no question about that.
If you check the record, Mr. Speaker, you will find that for the eighteenth time this session this Government is using closure to stop debate on vitally important legislation. The Minister refers to it as time allocation; that is nonsense. It is just a play on words. There is no difference between time allocation and closure. It is closure on legislation in the case of Canagrex, which could have-and I emphasize "could have"-profoundly detrimental effects on the future of the Canadian agriculture industry.
I cannot understand the Minister's logic in pushing through this legislation at this time. If he were serious about the need for this new Crown corporation, then why did he not push it through two days after he moved the closure motion on December 16? Is it because he feels opposition to the Bill has died down? That is certainly not the case. My colleagues and I continue to receive large numbers of letters and telegrams of protest which point out the weaknesses but, more importantly, the dangers of this Bill.
These problems were pointed out in the Standing Committee on Agriculture where some 20 out of the 32 groups appearing before it opposed the Bill, specifically its broad and ill-defined buy and sell powers. Agricultural groups like the Western Barley Growers said:
-excessive power given to Canagrex worries us as it may be used as a tool for income transfer to various areas of the country.

June 13, 1983
Canagrex
The Alberta Canola Growers Association testified:
Our organization disagrees with the need for a federal agency to act as a principal in the sale of agriculture products. We support an organization that has the role of an agent only.
The flax growers said of Canagrex's broad buy and sell powers that it-
-presents a serious threat to the continued existence of privately or cooperatively owned businesses engaged in marketing our products.
The Palliser Wheat Growers indicated that the greatest impediment to more aggressive production and marketing programs for most prairie farm products is excessive Government regulation. These regulations, together with the associated Government bureaucracy, bear down on agriculture and interfere with the development of a strong production and marketing thrust. They say that they have seen no evidence that the trade is not well able to do an effective marketing job with those Canadian products produced at competitive world prices if the legislative environment permits that trade to function and function normally. The Alberta All Breeds Association said:
The reality of Canagrex is that foreign Governments would have little incentive to transact business with anyone in Canada but Canagrex.
The Canadian Meat Council said:
Our main concern with the Canagrex proposal is that it will interfere and detract from the successful accomplishments and/or duplicate existing achievements.
The western stockgrowers say that Government should legislate so that it supports the private sector and should never attempt to suppress or stifle the initiative of the businessman and the entrepreneur. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association said:
We should walk before we run and not proceed with undue haste to create a structure that may be inappropriate to our needs. Canagrex may become a direct marketing agent in its own right and thus go far beyond the promotional, facilitating and support functions originally envisioned.
Let us travel to eastern Canada, I know the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) will be interested in what the Prince Edward Island Potato Marketing Board had to say about his colleague's Bill. They said:
We are in agreement with the purposes of the Bill in so far as promoting and facilitating the export of seed and tablestock potatoes are concerned, but we emphatically disagree with Government agency becoming engaged in the export of Prince Edward Island seed or tablestock potatoes if "becoming engaged" includes buy and sell.
I can remember, Mr. Speaker, some time ago when this Bill was front and centre during farm meetings as one travelled across the country, having the opportunity to be in Prince Edward Island and to meet with some of these people. They told me very emphatically that there was some misinterpretation and misunderstanding with reference to what was really meant by the term "engage in". I remember their making it very clear to me that if that meant to buy and sell, then certainly to count them out. Even those agricultural organizations which testified in favour of Canagrex were concerned about the buy and sell powers. The Canadian Pork Council said:
We believe that, unless the present marketing agencies are not responsive or not aggressive enough to apparent marketing opportunities, Canagrex should not be involved in commodity trading.
The Canadian Horticultural Council warned that any effort by Canagrex in international trade should not conflict with or work against the efforts presently underway by industry organizations. Even the Ontario Flue Cured Tobacco Marketing Board down in my part of the country, which has probably been one of the greatest supporters of the Canagrex legislation, testified that present exporters must be assured that the purpose of Canagrex is to assist, and that it will not in any way oppose or interfere with the present export activities being carried on by the Marketing Board. I challenge the Minister to stand here today and speak to that Board and the producers, as well as the Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board and the Soy Bean Marketing Board in our part of the country, and give them an iron-clad commitment that indeed Canagrex, given the power it has, will not interfere. I challenge him to do that but I know he cannot respond.
The buy and sell powers of the legislation are too broad and ill-defined. In committee we also heard not the Department of Agriculture advisers, Mr. Speaker, but indeed the Department of Justice legal advisers admit that the legislation was loose and there was no definite commitment on the part of Canagrex to co-operate with or indeed receive approval from commodity groups and marketing boards in the selling of their product. They warned us of that.
In other words, the broad buy and sell powers of Canagrex could-and this is important to the producers and farmers in Ontario-if misused, usurp the powers of the provincial commodity marketing boards. Because Canagrex would want to be part of as many lucrative export deals as possible in order to be successful, which is a natural assumption, our traditional agricultural exporters could be cut off from marketing information available to their agents by Canagrex and other Government departments and agencies.
The Government brought forward an amendment in committee which would restrict Canagrex to buy and sell only in joint ventures and upon request. However, this restriction was then swept aside with the admission that a joint venture could be made with as few as one individual.
The Minister has stated that Canagrex would be a valuable tool to shore up Canadian commodity prices in the export market. However, the commodity prices would be forced down instead of up if Canagrex contracts were opened up for bidding. If they were not opened up for bidding, obviously one area of the country could be played off against the other. While I am not saying this would necessarily happen, there is that risk. As far as we are concerned, that risk cannot be taken.
I will not follow the Minister's example of taking everything that I hear and see as gospel truth, but in my travels across the country I have been told that the Minister has indicated that it would help to increase export prices because it could indeed be
June 13, 1983

subsidized. I do not believe the Minister even said that and he is shaking his head negatively. Eiowever that feeling is obviously out there across the country and has surfaced at at least a dozen meetings at which 1 have taken questions from the floor seeking to clarify this matter. It should definitely be clarified that Canagrex, even given the sweeping powers that it now has, does not have the power to subsidize a Canadian agricultural product in the export market.
The Minister has also said that Canagrex would only use its buy and sell powers in unusual or extraordinary circumstances. But the Minister already has these powers and spoke about them earlier this morning. I refer to the powers of the Agricultural Products Board. My colleagues and 1 believe that by having to go to Cabinet according to the terms of the Agricultural Products Board Act, that would certainly give some type of protection with reference to the business that could be transacted by the corporation.
The only protection presently offered to those organizations fearful of Canagrex' broad buy and sell powers is the Minister's word. While I can only speak for myself, a Minister's word is pretty small comfort to me. The Minister's word that the powers would only be used in unusual circumstances is not good enough for me. I am sure that it is not good enough for the majority of Canadian farmers in this country.
During his career, which is about to come to an end, the Minister has made many, many promises. Can the House remember the promises about cheap money for farmers? Does it remember the promises about the agri-bond concept? Does it remember the promise about capital gains legislation? Does it remember the promise about a stabilization program for beef farmers in this country? The list goes on and on. However, I want to deal specifically with this Bill and utilize my time to speak on behalf of the Canadian farmers, for whom the Minister indicated, very inappropriately and inaccurately, that we did not speak.
Canadian agriculture deserves more protection than the Minister's word. Our amendments to Clause 14 and related clauses of the Bill would have provided the protection that the Canadian agri-food industry needs. The Minister has discounted our concerns and the concerns of many farm groups across the country. He said that the adoption of four or five amendments by the committee should ease our concern. Certainly we appreciate the amendments that were accepted by the Government, but these were technical amendments, in essence, and not very substantive. One amendment dealt with a language change and he had no option but to accept our other amendment because it was simply a reminder that the amendment was necessary to make Canagrex compatible with Crown corporation legislation.
Let there be no doubt that the intent of our more substantive amendments dealt specifically with the removal of powers to buy and sell and engage in joint ventures. That is the thrust of our amendments and it is unfortunate that it required about 14 or 15 amendments. We cannot be blamed for that because we did not write the Bill. The Minister's advisers wrote the Bill and in our response to make certain that these powers were
Canagrex
removed it was necessary for us not simply to introduce one amendment to Clause 14 but to introduce a number.
Despite the Minister's promises, Canagrex could become a power unto itself. The Auditor General does not offer sufficient protection against abuses by Canagrex. He only reports on the financial accountability of Crown corporations. He does not examine whether politics interfere or have influence on commercial dealings and decisions. As well, his reports can be ignored. For example, his report questioned the benefit to the Canadian taxpayers of Petro-Canada's purchase of Petrofina, and his inability to get sufficient information from Petro-Canada gives us some idea of the shortcomings of the powers of the Auditor General and his Department.
The need for Parliament to approve Canagrex' budget does not offer sufficient protection either. Parliament can certainly ask questions about it, but bearing in mind majority Governments, these budgets always receive approval in the end.
As well, the ability of Parliament to review corporate plans does not offer sufficient protection. Canadair had a corporate plan and it cost the Canadian taxpayer some $1.5 billion. The five-year review also does not offer sufficient protection against Canagrex abuses. The review is simply that; it is a parliamentary review. It is not a sunset clause. I know that my colleague from Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) had very vigorously pursued the opportunity to implement a real sunset clause. Of course, it was denied.
Some farm groups have urged that the board of directors of Canagrex include a majority of producers in order to protect their interests. However, there is nothing in the Bill which requires this. Instead, the board will be appointed at the discretion of Cabinet and it would therefore not be too surprising to think that political contracts rather than agricultural knowledge would be involved in the selection.
In this respect it is rather interesting to recall that the Minister is always standing in the House and on public platforms across the country saying that various organizations support him. He says that a majority of producers support him. That is nonsense. He is inaccurate. I have heard him stand in the House on a number of occasions to say that he has the complete support of the largest farm organization in Canada, meaning the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. That is not absolutely true. The fact is that the position of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is that they are supportive of this legislation but they place a condition upon it. That condition is that the majority of the people on the board of directors be producers. Again, the Minister of Agriculture cannot stand in the House and give us that commitment. When it comes to the bottom line, he obviously does not have the complete and full support of the largest farm organization in the country, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
I am sure that the greatest disservice the Minister has imposed on the Canadian agricultural industry could be Canagrex. In the first clause of the Bill he has imposed the unpopular and potentially disastrous buy and sell powers. It is my opinion and indeed that of those farm organizations which particularly have had some considerable experience in the

June 13, 1983
Canagrex
export of agricultural products in the export market that the most important part of the Bill is the need for export credits and insurance. That is what the Canadian agricultural industry needs. That is what the Canadian agricultural organizations need. They do not need the buy and sell powers; they need export credits and export insurance. That is the guts of the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that the buy and sell powers are not needed. The agricultural groups did not urge and have not been urging-those people have been somewhat supportive-the passage of this Bill because of the buy and sell powers, not at all. They have been urging the support of this Bill on the basis of the need for export credits and insurance.
The Minister has said that the Canadian agricultural exporters have not been doing an effective job. He has claimed they have missed too many opportunities. I am going to be very honest with you, Mr. Speaker. I had some mixed feelings about the job that some of our Canadian exporters were doing; but after having provided them an opportunity to come before the committee and to hear some of the evidence and to see some of the results of some of the private exporters and some of the agricultural organizations, particularly those in western Canada, I certainly had no doubts in my mind, when I saw the results, that many of the private organizations were doing an excellent job. They could have been doing a better job, I am sure, if they had been provided the export credits and the export insurance. That is what is needed.
We do not need a Government buying and selling through a Crown corporation. We do not need this Government agency interfering with the marketplace. The Liberal Government has abundantly and clearly shown in the oil industry that it is not able to do better than, or even do a comparable job to, the private sector; yet the Minister refused to consider these arguments. They were made by all members on the committee. They were made by the majority of farm organizations which appeared before the committee.
What is the purpose of bringing witnesses before the standing committee? In my opinion and in our Party's opinion, I am certain the purpose is to talk to the people working in this specific area day in and day out. Those are the people who really know what is going on, not the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) or the agricultural critic. The committee provides an excellent opportunity to get up-to-date, accurate information on what is going on in the international field. We have done that. We got the message loud and clear; there is no question about that at all. The message almost without exception was that we did not need the buy and sell powers in Canagrex.
I stand to be corrected because this was a long time ago, but 1 do recall that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, if they had had a choice, probably would have opted not to have this legislation at all. The second organization-and the Minister
brags and boasts about having the largest organization supporting this Bill, which is nonsense and garbage-is the Consumers Association of Canada. That is the largest lobby organization there is in this country. The Consumers Association represents 300,000 farmers and 24 million people. That was the largest organization which made a presentation to us in committee. This organization would have preferred to have Canagrex killed and not to have surfaced at all.
What did the Minister do? He completely ignored this accurate, up-to-date information. Instead he launched and spent several thousand dollars in the preparation of a publication called "Canagrex-Responding to the Need". He tried to make the claim that he speaks on behalf of Canadian agriculture. That is absolute nonsense. He has completely ignored the input we received in committee. We did not ignore it. We got the message loud and clear. I had some doubts about how effective this corporation could be. There is no question that it is going to become a reality. The Liberals have a majority and they can do what they want.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: And the Minister is.


John Wise: And the Minister is doing what he wants, as my colleague from Provencher (Mr. Epp) accurately responds. We got the message. People do not want the powers of buy and sell.
Let me get back to Canagrex responding to the need. This is another example of wasteful Liberal Government spending, the spending of several thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money. In the eyes of this publication Canagrex has no problems. It is that little piece of legislation containing some 40 pages. Canagrex is equated with the salvation of agricultural products exporters. Just talk to the agricultural products exporters and see if they look upon Canagrex as being the salvation of their industry, Mr. Speaker. It even contains two-probably the only two-editorials which have appeared in support of Canagrex. I questioned the Minister through Order Paper Question No. 4,529 as to why the publication did not include any of the more than 20 editorials which had appeared at that time condemning Canagrex. The Minister responded that such editorials could not be found. He responded that none could be found.
I question the accuracy of that response. If this marks the level of his research-and I have a higher regard for his research than that-then I can understand why his cabinet colleagues do not take him seriously and why they have tried to suppress many of his initiatives.
In order to help the Minister, I would like to point out to him some of the editorials which, indeed, have been missed. Does the Minister or his officials not monitor the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix! It covers a wide agricultural area. On June 8, 1982, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix in an editorial wrote:
Given the breadth of opposition it's difficult to imagine who, outside of Whelan and his bureaucrats, supports the proposal.
There, Mr. Minister, is an editorial that appeared in the Star-Phoenix June 8, 1982. It is interesting to note that on
June 13, 1983

July 6, 1982 someone by the name of Eugene Whelan wrote a response to this editorial indicating it was wrong.


An Hon. Member:: Eugene who?


John Wise: Eugene Whelan.


Mr. Kempling:: Who is he?


John Wise: The Minister should be concerned about someone using his name since this is one of the editorials which he claimed he had not found.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
In an editorial in the Edmonton Journal on June 4, 1982, we read:
Given the current mistrust of state management, and of the long term plans of Ottawa bureaucrats, perhaps the correct response is to confine Canagrex to export promotion. It should prove itself capable of walking before it runs.
I could not agree more with that editorial from the Edmonton Journal.


An Hon. Member:: Did Eugene Whelan write that?


John Wise: I do not think the Minister wrote that editorial, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister could have missed those editorials written in the larger urban newspaper, but surely the Minister would have read the editorial of May, 1982 that appeared in the Country Guide. It reads:
Once again Eugene Whelan has been unable to distinguish between the important and the totally insignificant. After 10 years the farm community has become accustomed to this, one can but hope, however, that cooler heads prevail and Canagrex is killed before it multiplies.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: I am sure the Minister would not have missed the editorial in Agriweek which appeared in May, 1983. It reads:
Mr. Whelan's eagerness to establish still another bureaucracy has outdistanced any effort to diagnose the real cause of our sputtering food exports. As a result, he has developed a sizeable multi-faceted organization without first defining precisely the problems to be solved. In his zeal to do something, Mr. Whelan has devised a plan based on good intentions and motherhood statements and one that reveals an astounding lack of rigorous thinking.
In the July editorial that appeared in Food Canada last year, it was indicated that Bill C-85 was too loosely written and too open-ended. Also it indicated that the restraints on such a federal corporation, if it must exist, should be spelled out in clear terms; otherwise Canagrex could indeed become "Canagarbage".
These are only a few editorials that appeared prior to the end of August, 1982, the date of the last editorial in the publication "Canagrex responding to the need". I am not surprised they were not included in the publication. However, I am amazed that the Minister would have the arrogance to say that he never saw any of the opposing editorials. Has he seen or read any of the more than 100 editorials and articles which condemned Canagrex? I am sure he has. If not, I would be
Canagrex
very happy to send the Minister copies of them. I think it is important to indicate that even papers which originally-


Eugene Whelan: Some editorial writers do not know anything about agriculture.


John Wise: The Minister says that some papers do not know anything about agriculture. I would disagree, but I would also be inclined to agree that many of them do, and a lot of them come from large urban areas. I would not like to make the statement the Minister made, that most farm papers do not know much about agriculture.


Eugene Whelan: I said "editorial writers".


John Wise: Even papers which originally endorsed Canagrex have had second thoughts. Not only newspapers and farm papers but many farmers and farm organizations, not knowing much about it, were originally impressed with the efforts of the Government to establish a greater priority in the export of agricultural products. Everybody supports that. We support that. There is no question about that. There are many ways in which this can be done. Many farmers and their organizations support the facilitating aspect of Canagrex. My Party and I support that, there is no question about it. Many farmers and agricultural organizations support the need for export credits and export insurance.
There is no question about the fact that there is such a need out there. I support that, we support that, but it comes down to the bottom line. Some of us have doubts about the buy and sell powers. There is no question about that either. After going through committee and obtaining the information and the feelings of individuals in farm organizations, there should be no question about the message out there. They support the things about which I talked earlier. There is no question about the fact that they do not support it, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which placed a condition on it. Even farm papers which originally endorsed Canagrex have had second thoughts. There is a prime example. Originally Farm and Country endorsed Canagrex, although it recommended that it should be subject to a sunset clause or a sunset law. That was the position of Farm and Country at the beginning of this debate. In the interval they have had an opportunity, the same opportunity as my colleagues and I and the same opportunity as the Minister and his colleagues, to hear credible witnesses, people who are in the business, make their pitch and presentation. There should be no question about that whatsoever. Any thinking person, any person with respect for information supplied by people who know what they are talking about, should take the same position we have or the same position which Farm and Country took on January 18, 1983, at which time its editorial called upon the Minister to compromise on the buy and sell powers. After having an opportunity to look at the Bill, Farm and Country indicated that the Minister should compromise on the buy and sell powers.
Another excellent recommendation in that editorial was the suggestion that these powers should be hoisted for five years so that Canagrex could prove its worth as a promoter and

June 13, 1983
Canagrex
facilitator. If it could prove its worth, if it could be demonstrated at the time of the parliamentary review that it needed the power to buy and sell, we would have been in a very difficult position to deny the Minister. But again the Minister ignored that common sense advice.
A short time ago I read a rural magazine wherein the Essex Federation of Agriculture asked an independent lawyer to look at the Bill.


Eugene Whelan: A good lawyer but a good Conservative too.


John Wise: If he is a good Conservative, that makes his advice more valid.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: I do not have the article in front of me, but the solicitor from Windsor spoke to the Essex County Federation of Agriculture and put forth the same cautions which we are putting forth today. In fact, coming from St. Thomas, an old railroad city, the solicitor recommended that the farmers of the country should take a little railroad advice. I know what he meant by that. It was a little stop, look and listen. The Minister would do well if he followed the advice we have attempted to give him over the last two years. He would do well if he followed the advice of the legal advisers of the Department of Justice. He would do well if he followed the advice of most agricultural organizations in the country. He would do well if he followed the advice of a solicitor from his own home town.
I recognize that my time is unlimited, but I wanted to use this opportunity to make our position very clear once again. I am certain that our position is very clear across the country; there is no question about that. Hon. Members on this side of the House have put a great deal of energy and effort into trying to inform farm groups in all regions of the country exactly what are the dangers of the Bill. They have done an excellent job. From reading the mail I continue to receive on a daily basis, there is no question in my mind that farmers and people in the agri-food industry know the dangers of the Bill.
1 am extremely disappointed that the Minister has not taken that advice. He has represented the farm community since 1972. That is a long time. It is a very sad day for me, particularly when the message is so clear and he turns his back on the people he represents. If he would have removed the powers to buy and sell, indeed if he would have taken that position from the beginning, we would not be debating the Bill today. I am certain that with the removal of the powers to buy and sell and to engage in joint ventures, we would not be debating the Bill today. I am certain that it would be in place. In doing so, no doubt we would have been farther down the road in providing something which the Canadian agri-food industry needs to increase the exportation of agricultural commodities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) several questions. In 1979 he was interviewed by a newspaper which has some good farm reporting,
the London Free Press, at which time he was asked what the top priority of his department would be. He replied:
Agriculture exports will be my top priority. It is a springboard from which we can with planning and effort continue to expand our export market opportunities. One tool that will be used to increase exports is the recently announced agriculture export corporation which will sell Canadian foodstuffs abroad.
That is a very good paper. I have several other questions; I will put them as quickly as I can. Members opposite continue to say that the Minister will pit one area of Canada against the other and possibly give special privileges to them by working with Canagrex. Has he considered what Alberta is doing at the present time with subsidies to the canola crushers? Also, there is a $9 a ton freight subsidy. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that Saskatchewan and Manitoba have made representations to the federal Government asking for the same kind of assistance. They cannot afford that kind of assistance which amounts to almost $49 a ton when you add it all up. That is the assistance they are getting for those products. They are not just for export. This gives them a tremendous advantage over the other canola crushers and producers in other regions. Does he not consider that preferred action? That is Government action.
Does the Hon. Member not know what Tony Saretsky said inthe Agriculture Committee with regard to the Alberta Cattle Commission? I believe it is purebred cattle they deal in, the Canadian Breeders' Association. He said they had to have the operative power to buy and sell and they went back and got the power to buy and sell. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is like Parliament or any other organization. It is a democratic organization. When the majority make a decision to support Canagrex or any other proposition that is put before them, that is democracy in action. Overall they represent about 200,000 people. It is true that some of their members are saying that they have certain reservations about Canagrex and this type of thing.
He challenged me to appear before other boards such as the soybean board, the white bean board, the tobacco board and my own county Federation of Agriculture. I have met them. They still are very strong supporters of Canagrex. I also met with the Canada Pork Council which is still supporting Canagrex and the authority that it has to buy and sell, et cetera.
Also he spoke about my county. I have addressed my own county Federation of Agriculture. He also spoke of a lawyer. Does he realize that when he was a student in law school we were commercial operators picking sweet corn for Green Giant? Therefore we know one another very well.
Does he also realize that the Essex County Federation of Agriculture withdrew their concerns after I addressed them? They said that was satisfactory to them as long as their Member of Parliament and Minister stated it. Is he aware of that? Is he aware that the lawyer he spoke of has been a longtime friend? In a democracy, even friends can disagree.
June 13, 1983


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Minister began by reading, I think very accurately, a response to a comment that I had made to the report in the London Free Press. The accuracy of that report is right on. It is complete. There is no question about the fact that, when I assumed the job as Minister of Agriculture of this country, there was a very definite attempt and thrust to improve agricultural products in the export market.
There were a number of ways to do this. The first way was to give that subject a higher priority in the Department of Agriculture. We began to do that. The other way was to place greater authority and jurisdiction within the Department of Agriculture itself. The Minister knows that if you are dealing in the export market, you are not only dealing with Ag-Canada, you are dealing with Industry, Trade and Commerce, Finance and External Affairs. This becomes pretty cumbersome. You can certainly streamline this and provide greater results for Canadian agriculture if you have more of a consolidation and more of the decision making within Ag-Canada. That is one way. We were working toward that. The Minister cannot deny that; he knows it.
The second way in which we began to move was to increase the number of trade commissioners and trade officers in our embassies around the world. It is very difficult to get these people, no question about it. However, in the very brief time we did hold office we increased the number of trade commissioners and trade officers in our trade offices specifically and totally responsible for the promotion of agriculture products in foreign markets. We did achieve that.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is where the confusion comes in. I did not deal with this in my speech because I was certain someone would ask a question about it. I refer to the area of a special agency or corporation; at that point we really did not know. Certainly a great deal of effort was made within the Department. A couple of submissions were made with respect to the establishment of an agriculture products export agency, call it what you want.
The Minister and indeed some of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have been attempting to associate me with Canagrex as it is today. That is false. It is not true. I had never heard of "Canagrex". I did not put the name Canagrex on this Bill and the Minister knows it. The Minister can either take the credit or bear the responsibility, depending on what the future holds, for the word Canagrex and the Crown corporation Canagrex. He knows that. There is no doubt about the fact that we were working in that area. We knew that Canadian agriculture had to have an agency or some type of unit which would provide the much needed export credit which had always been denied to agricultural commodities by the Export Development Corporation. Canadian farmers do not have the benefit of the Export Development Corporation. It does not insure for food products and they also needed the benefit of export insurance.
We had no problems with that whatsoever. We were coming to the conclusion that it appeared that in an effort to provide
Canagrex
those export credits and export insurance coverage, we could not do it within a division of Ag-Canada. It was doubtful whether we could do it at an agency level. It appeared that we would probably need a Crown corporation to provide the export credit and the export insurance.
I cannot say any more than that. The Minister knows that for me to say more would be breaking a Privy Council oath. I want him to nod positively to me now that he knows that.


Eugene Whelan: I was not referring to Privy Council.


John Wise: This is important. The Minister has played political mischief with this question, as have some of my colleagues in the NDP. I am not going to go any further than that, but I will tell you one thing Mr. Speaker. Even if we had brought in Bill C-85 in its present form, even if I would have called it Canagrex, after hearing 32 witnesses before the committee and getting the telegrams, telephone calls and representations which I and other Members of my Party have received, if I sat over there I would have withdrawn months ago the power to buy and sell. I challenge him, dammit, to do the same thing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and answers has expired but may be continued with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent to extend the time for questions and answers?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. speaker, the Hon. Member for Elgin put a challenge to me and I acknowledge what he said about his oath of office as a Privy Councillor. That is fact. For instance, in The Western Producer of June 14, 1979-


John Wise: Answer the question.


Eugene Whelan: I never used the word "Canagrex" today when talking about what the Hon. Member said and when I asked him the question. I said that he said it would expand our export market opportunities. As reported by the London Free Press-.
Wise has said one tool that will be used to increase export is the recently announced agricultural export corp.-
I did not use the word "Canagrex".
-which will sell Canadian food products abroad.
On June 14, 1979, it was reported:
The Progressive Conservative party compaigned on a pledge to concentrate on expanding markets for Canadian agricultural products and Wise says he wants to act quickly to complete efforts stated by former minister Eugene Whelan to establish an export marketing body for agriculture.
The Western Producer is one of the most widely read magazines in the farmer community.
If I were a farmer, I would not think that there was much difference of opinion between the Hon. Member for Elgin and myself at that stage of the game. That is what I would think if

June 13, 1983
Canagrex
1 was a farmer who read the most widely read magazine in the farming community.
The Hon. Member for Elgin also had some reservations. As reported by The Western Producer.
Although Wise says his final decisions on these issues will have to await further briefings, his initial opinions put him in conflict with significant segments of the agriculture community.
That statement was presented to me. The Hon. Member made all kinds of statements and some of them have been put on the record. But when he says that he challenges me after having listened to the witnesses, I challenge him to serve the public, Mr. Speaker, as well as I have and as honestly as I have. How he interprets the witnesses who appeared before the committee in his opinion and how 1 interpret them is my opinion, and we have the right to our own opinions. I interpreted the results of the committee as being that the majority of people who appeared before that committee want the Canadian agricultural export corporation. Research done by my own officials, letters 1 have received, many of which I have not even made public, lead me to make that kind of judgment. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of the agriculture producers in Canada want the Canadian agricultural export corporation. The Hon. Member has a different opinion. That is his right.
Again, 1 must refer to what the Hon. Member for Elgin said in committee: "You have been responsible, you have responded to our requests. It is on the records. I think I can sell this to my caucus." Then he could not sell it to his caucus. What was I to think? He said this after all of the witnesses had appeared before the committee in the final submission to the committee before its results went back to the House of Commons. What was I to think when the official agriculture critic of the Opposition said that at that time? That was before the matter had become politicized.
The brother-in-law of the Hon. Member sitting right across from me, the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who is a potato producer in Manitoba, is a strong supporter of Canagrex in Manitoba. He knows the Canadian agriculture industry.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and I have had conversations about family members who are very dear to me. I do not think that the House of Commons is the place to raise these conversations. I say to the Hon. Minister that he knows very well that my brother-in-law agrees with some parts of Canagrex but has advised him to withdraw others. I would ask the Minister to be honest.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's brother-inlaw and I differ on politics, but we certainly agree on what should be done for agriculture. He has sent me letters and has made public speeches in favour of Canagrex. If he has any reservations that are contrary to my views, I am not aware of them. Any reservations that the Hon. Member's brother-in-law has have not been presented to me. I still respect the Hon. Member's brother-in-law. If he feels that I have offended him,
I withdraw anything that would be offensive.


Mr. Bossy:: Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly put a question to the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) whom I have respected for many years. I find it strange that he did not once mention the news release of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether he questions the sincerity, integrity and credibility of the President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture when the President states in a press release of November 10, 1982:
"Our agricultural industry desperately needs a corporation like Canagrex. It would be criminal to delay putting it in place because of petty politicking,"-
The new release goes on to say:
Barrie stressed that the powers which would be granted to Canagrex are "not extraordinary', and rather than posing a threat to free enterprise, it would be most beneficial to smaller agricultural producer groups, which normally wouldn't be able to crack export markets.
"Canagrex is absolutely essential if we are to fill the gaping void between our potential to produce and manufacture agricultural products for export, and our present performance,"-
This statement was made by the President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, a strong federation, and backs up the strong pleas made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and agricultural federation in Quebec and the National Farmers' Union. These are groups with strong memberships that represent farmers.
I must also ask the Hon. Member if, after having seen the embassy problem, the Petro-Canada problem and the Canagrex problem, this is a turnaround from what was stated in 1979 and what is being stated now, and whether the Opposition does not really know whether it is right to form a Canadian export corporation, as they have been very doubtful on many other things that they might have done.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Bossy) asked a number of questions. He did refer to a longtime friend of mine, Ralph Barrie, the President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I am not so sure who wrote that press release, but I think using the word "criminal" is using a little bit of overkill and is overexaggeration. I am not so sure whether my friend Ralph Barrie would have used that word.
There is no question about the fact that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture led by Mr. Barrie has every right to put forth its views and opinions and its stand on Canagrex. I know what its position is; but on the other hand, looking at the position taken by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, it can be seen that it is supportive of Canagrex but has attached a condition that the Minister cannot comply with. I have challenged the Minister and have invited him to make that commitment to the CFA. He cannot do that. He has had a number of opportunities to do that. He has had a year and a half to do that. Is the Minister asking me to turn my back on nine Provinces and to follow the advice of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture? Is he asking me to turn my back on 28 major national farm organizations plus all of the provincial Governments and turn instead to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture? I cannot do that.
I have talked to my constitutents in Elgin, some whom are supportive of Canagrex. Of course, all of them would feel
June 13, 1983

better if it did not have the power to buy and sell. I have talked to constituents of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I know of one lady, Mrs. Pyke, I believe it is, in that constituency who is very supportive of Canagrex. She would feel better if-


An Hon. Member:: Just one?


John Wise: Well, there are not many but I know that the Member for Kingston and the Islands does have one constituent who is in favour of it. There is no question about that. Even if I were to stand on my farm in Elgin County, Ontario, with a neighbour who is probably more supportive of Canagrex, as the agriculture critic for this Party and looking at the situation from an Ottawa point of view, I could not turn my back on all this opposition to Canagrex. I could not do that even though I may have a neighbour in southern Ontario who is supportive of it. That would be irresponsible. This is basically the same thing.
From a national point of view one has to listen to the advice not only from Ontario but from eastern and western Canada. I know that advice is mixed, Mr. Speaker. Then you have to decide. I have done that and I have decided in a responsible manner that the proper course of action would be to proceed without the power to buy and sell.
Personally I think the editorial in Farm and Country summed it up-give the power to buy and sell a five-month hoist, come back to Parliament in five years and if you can demonstrate you need it, that is the time to get it. But you must prove that you need the power to buy and sell.
We would not want to hamper in any way, shape or form any measure that would interfere with the process of expanding agricultural products in the export field.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on third reading about the importance of the Bill before the House and the importance of agriculture to our economy.
When I look at the trade performance of Canada around the world, 1 see that in essence the trade missions of this country primarily push manufactured goods and resource products in foreign markets. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the resource associations of our country are very strong lobbyists and have connections with different associations around the world to push their products. I think it is therefore very important that Canadian farmers have an export agency that will push our agricultural products in the world. That exists for some commodities already. In general, the Canadian Wheat Board has been effective in selling our wheat.
I do not understand why the Conservative Party and some other people in the country are apprehensive about giving other farmers the same kind of opportunities that our grain farmers have to sell their products abroad. The legislation before the House today is voluntary; if certain producers do not like the legislation, they need not participate. If they want to sell their tomatoes or cucumbers in a different way, they can
Canagrex
do so. They do not have to participate in Canagrex as it is not a compulsory organization.
After five years the legislation will be reviewed by Parliament and could easily be changed at that time. For those reasons I think we should give the legislation a fair chance.
At the same time, however, I wish the Minister would change a number of things in the Bill. For example, I wish he would allow the farmers of Canada to control and direct Canagrex. This point has been mentioned by the CFA. I wish he would make sure that the farmers of Canada will decide who will sit on the board of directors so that they can run the agency rather than a few bureaucrats in Ottawa doing so. They are often isolated from the reality of the real world. Perhaps that is a radical idea; perhaps it is economic democracy. It is an extension of political democracy into the economic field but I think we must go in that direction. I wish the Minister would agree.
I am afraid he is going to do what so often happens when the federal Government makes appointments to Crown corporations. A lot of old and dear friends are rewarded by being made directors. That is not the direction we want for Canagrex.
I hope the new agency will be successful. Agriculture is so important to everyone in the country.

These are difficult times, not only for Canada but for the whole world, from the economic point of view. We are now experiencing a world-wide recession, and not only that, we also have a lot of unemployment. Here in Canada, agriculture is one of our strongest sectors. Our producers are very good at what they do, very productive, and they need help in seeking international markets for their products. In the House today, we are considering a Bill that will provide that assistance. Mr. Speaker, our producers are faced with a great many problems. The United States and-

-the European Common Market and some other countries in the world are very protectionist about their farmers. The United States has a massive subsidy program of over $12 billion per year to support agricultural production in that country. The Europeans have a tremendous system of price support, price guarantees and subsidies for their farmers. Our grain farmers face tremendous disadvantages because of distance from ports and because other countries pay even more massive subsidies to their grain farmers than we do with the Crow rate.
We need an export agency that will find new markets for our agricultural products. I believe that is very, very important. This legislation will offer the country an opportunity to diversify in agriculture and to take some of the smaller, specialty crops that do not have much clout on the international market and find markets for them. The agency can be the vehicle that will allow the small to participate, allow the small to find a market, allow the small to grow and expand. That is

June 13, 1983
Canagrex
very, very important. This legislation will offer an opportunity to encourage exports.
The other point is that Canagrex is not a very big agency, Mr. Speaker. If I understand correctly, the budget is $4 million per year for the next three years, so it is not going to be a large agency.
Those are some of the reasons I think it is important that Canagrex be given an opportunity. I have also been looking at who is supporting and who is opposing Canagrex. The principle is supported by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and many of the provincial Federations of Agriculture. The Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) mentioned that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture supports it and most provincial marketing boards also support it, as does the National Farmers Union. It is opposed by some of the more reactionary, right-wing and conservative farm organizations, such as the Palliser Wheat Growers Association and organizations of that kind.
In my riding I know that people support orderly marketing and they support the Canadian Wheat Board as being an aggressive sales agency for farmers in world markets. Most farmers want that kind of opportunity for other commodities. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the agency is a voluntary one.
The other point is that the Standing Committee on Agriculture was persuaded to accept an amendment by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) to the effect that the Auditor General may do a comprehensive audit at any time he or she wishes. This will make Canagrex one of the most accountable Crown corporations we have in this country.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is very important because something which dismays me as an Hon. Member of this House, having been here since 1968, is that I find that federal Crown corporations in the main are not accountable to Members of Parliament. In the main, federal Crown corporations are agencies which look after themselves, which are accountable to a certain Minister or to the federal Government, and I believe that has to change. I feel that to have true parliamentary democracy Crown corporations must be accountable to this institution, to this place.
In my own Province of Saskatchewan, for example, for many, many years now we have had what is called a Crown corporations committee, a committee established by the then Premier, Tommy Douglas, in the CCF Government back in the 1940s or early 1950s. All of the annual reports of the Crown corporations must go to the Crown corporations committee. That committee has the power to call in the presidents of the Crown corporations, and other people from the Crown corporations, and grill them, cross-examine them, and quiz them on what their plans are for the future and how they have handled their work in the years which have gone by.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that is something which this House should be doing as well, making sure that our Crown corporations are much more accountable in the future than they have
been in the past. Perhaps in this piece of legislation we have taken one small step in that direction.
Something which I have already mentioned is that I believe farmers themselves should be on the board of directors. I believe that farmers themselves should choose the people who go on the board of directors of Canagrex. I believe that is very important in terms of understanding the agricultural industry. It is very important in terms of doing what the farmers of this country really want.
I feel, therefore, Mr. Speaker, with a number of reservations, that the legislation before the House is something which should, if properly administered and given a proper chance, be something positive for a lot of the small producers, something positive for a lot of producers who are producing some of the specialty crops in this country. I stress that if they do not like it, they can get out of it. It is voluntary and after five years the House of Commons will once again have an opportunity to review the legislation.
However, I feel it is very important that we give agriculture as much assistance as possible. For too long in this country, government after government has been placing its priorities, its money and its assistance in the baskets of the large company, the large manufacturers, the large resource companies, in the hope this would create a strong and vibrant Canadian economy. That has not happened. One of the sectors which has been very strong throughout all of this has been agriculture and I feel we are going to have to give them more and more assistance. The Economic Development Corporation, for example, does not assist agriculture. It assists the manufacturers. It assists the big in this country. There are many other Crown corporations such as the Canadian Commercial Corporation which will assist manufacturing, processing and resources in this country, but once again will not assist Canadian agriculture.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the House to give this legislation a chance. I appeal to the Minister to be a lot more generous in terms of accepting amendments which Canadian farmers want, to democratize Canagrex, and to keep Canagrex as an agency which is more in touch with the ordinary Canadian producers. I believe that if he does that and is a little more co-operative, then perhaps this is an experiment which can work for each and every one of us.
[ Translation]
This might be a very good thing, not only for our producers across Canada but also for the entire country, in years to come.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) aware that the Hon. Member for Elgin, when he was questioned about whether farmers would constitute the majority of the members on the board, expressed strong reservations, and said he thought perhaps it should be people who are in the export business, are knowledgeable in the export business, and so on?
June 13, 1983


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that. First of all, I certainly disagree with the Hon. Member for Elgin. I believe farmers should be running this agency. Farmers know best. I believe farmers have a lot of expertise when it comes to the export business. I must say that I am not surprised. We have had a history of Government in this country, whether Liberal or Conservative, where bureaucrats or people from private industry, people with big bucks, have attempted to control Crown corporations and all kinds of Government agencies. When the Hon. Member makes that kind of statement it is not a surprise at all to me, Mr. Speaker.
However, I feel we must now go in the other direction.We must move towards really democratizing this country, making sure that ordinary workers, farmers and consumers, ordinary people, will be able to make important economic decisions in Canada. I believe for all too long we have tended to think that the important ecnomic decisions should be made by people who have the big bucks. If you are wealthy, if you are the president of a company, all of a sudden you have tremendous credibility. Company presidents and others in this country who have alot of money, Mr. Speaker, the extreme rich and the privileged of this country, have over the years made many, many mistakes. I would trust the farmers and the ordinary workers a lot more than I would trust the corporate elite in this country. Perhaps in the next few years we will recognize that people with certain experience in the big business community are not the best thing for the ordinary citizens of Canada.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I really rise on a point of order rather than to pose a question to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), because I believe he was somewhat misled. I was having a discussion with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister in an effort to reach some type of agreement in the reduction in time required for speakers and enable us to get more people on. I thought I heard the Minister quote an article where I said I did not want farmers on the board. That, of course, is very inaccurate. It is untrue. I said that the best thing that we could do is to make certain that on the board are those people who were the most qualified to serve on that board in the export field. So much the better if we can get those kinds of people from the farm industry. That is to say, I believe the best route to go is that the people who serve on that board should be the people most qualified to do so. There was certainly nothing in my thoughts that farmers should not be on that board. The Minister knows that.


Eugene Whelan: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I will send the Hon. Member the document where he was quoted. I am quoting from a document which says he does not agree with the former Government's proposal that the export agency be controlled by farmer members of the board. "He said his priority will be to have salesmen and marketing specialists on the board and any qualification as a producer
will be secondary. This will run counter to the strong view of the Canadian Federatioan of Agriculture which resisted the initial proposal for an export agency until it has a commitment from Mr. Whelan that a majority of members would be farmers." I am quoting.


John Wise: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what document the Minister is quoting from, but I think perhaps it would be a good idea if he would send it across to me and I could determine its accuracy.


Mr. Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on the most legitimate question of privilege that the Chair will ever be privileged to hear. This is to introduce in the gallery the new Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Brian Mulroney, the next Prime Minister of Canada!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, unlike the Premier of Quebec who was again being critical of one of our Members yesterday when he said that he was not a good Quebecer, I would like to extend, on behalf of the people of the North Shore, Baie Comeau, Sept-iles and Schefferville my sincere congratulations to Mr. Mulroney and his family. I think he is a person of whom the North Shore can be proud, and what is good for the North Shore is, I believe, good for the entire country. I would like to show all Canadians that we are proud to have someone from the North Shore as Leader of one of Canada's major parties. Of course, it would be nice if he had been a Liberal, but I know Mr. Mulroney very well, and I

June 13, 1983
am sure we will get along fine. Madam Speaker, I also hope he will visit Manicouagan for a round of political fencing, for instance.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I would like to extend on behalf of the New Democratic Party Caucus, and the Party as a whole, our sincere congratulations to Mr. Mulroney. We watched, with interest, the convention held last weekend and were as excited I suppose as everyone else at its climax and finality. We look forward to seeing him in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, may I ask if we can have a few words now from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to congratulate the new Leader of the Conservative Party?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Well. Madam Speaker, I can understand the interest of the Hon. Member. He is probably looking forward to collecting that bottle of scotch that he won betting on Brian Mulroney.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can assure him that I will gladly follow his suggestion, first by saying that, as usual, the Hon. Member is a little bit late. I have already congratulated Mr. Mulroney. We entered the House of Commons Chamber together. I congratulated him most warmly, and his family and children.
I think it was a great convention that the Tory Party held. It certainly was most exciting for everyone in the country. I can only express my admiration for the winner having come through such a difficult and tumultuous convention. I congratulate the whole Tory Party for having held such an exciting event and in conformity with the democratic process.
As to Mr. Mulroney, as I say, we entered the door together this afternoon. I hope he will be entering regularly, and that his Party will soon find occasion to permit him to contest a seat so we can enjoy his presence also as a Member in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would not want to sit down without also adding a word of congratulations to Mr. Clark, who fought a tremendous battle. There are many differences, as one knows, between Mr. Clark and myself, but I cannot help but admire his courage, his stamina, and his dedication to the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, by calling for the final day of supply as House business tomorrow, June 14, the Government has foreclosed Supplementary Estimates A. The Committees of this House have had precious little time to deal with these Estimates. There were no financial figures available for Canadair Limited until June 7. On that date the Committee managed to have only two meetings. Members have had virtually no opportunity to inquire into the need for that corporation to receive another $240 million.
The effect of tomorrow being an Opposition day totally prevents a realistic parliamentary inquiry into this Supplementary Estimate. The Committee has had no opportunity to look at de Havilland. The proper thing for the Government to do, if it believes in full disclosure and Parliament looking after the spending of money, is to delay the Opposition day until the week of June 27. That would be in accordance with precedent.
In the alternative, if the Government should specifically insist on an Opposition day tomorrow, it should withdraw the Estimates for Canadair and de Havilland, file new Supplementary Estimates, and allow the parliamentary process to work so that Parliament can have a chance to find out whether we should spend this money or not.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I want to remind this House that while the excitement of the Tory Convention dominated the news media last week, perhaps rightly so, the unemployment statistics came out as well. We must not forget amongst all this excitement that a great deal of human suffering continues in Canada. Unemployment is up since last year, and two things have been clearly indicated by these statistics. We have a very serious continuing problem of long-term unemployment, while the Government has brought in employment programs of short-term nature. Secondly, student unemployment this summer is up to an historic high. One in every five students seeking a job this summer cannot find work.
Now that the Liberal Government, in its last budget, shifted to the right in an attempt to undercut the Tory businessman style of politics, 1 call upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to try to undercut the Tories' claim of compassion, by doing something real and immediate for students this summer.
And the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) having entered the Chamber, all Members rose in tribute.
And the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) having entered the Chamber:


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 13, 1983

And the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) having entered the Chamber:


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
And the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) having entered the Chamber:


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
And the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble) having entered the Chamber:


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I was wondering if I should evacuate all of the galleries, because people in the galleries should know that they are not allowed to demonstrate their feelings in any way.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, on the occasion of the official visit to Ottawa of Mayor Freije of Bethlehem and in view of the two extreme positions taken on the one hand by the Likud, which favours the Erez Yisra'el policy and on the other hand by the Palestinians, who are in favour of a secular Palestine in which Jews, Christians and Arabs would live together in the same secular state, it is perhaps a good time to emphasize the preliminary conditions for a negotiated settlement. First of all, mutual recognition of Israel by the PLO and of the PLO by Israel; second, Israel's recognition of the right of Palestinians to autonomous government on the West Bank and in the Gaza strip; third, an immediate stop to Israel's policy of establishing settlements on the West Bank; and finally, the adoption by all parties concerned of the Reagan plan as a basis for negotiations. Madam Speaker, I believe these are the only conditions under which a negotiated and peaceful settlement can be achieved for all the parties concerned.


ETHNIC AFFAIRS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, last week a large group of people held an ecumenical service at Notre Dame Basilica in Ottawa to commemorate the
hiderous suffering of the Baltic-Ukrainian nations and the fiftieth anniversary of the famine in the Ukraine.
Archbishop Maxim Hermaniuk reminded us that approximately seven million human beings were murdered in the 1932-33 famine because they had dared to resist Joseph Stalin's collectivization of their farms. Their grain and vegetables were seized and, incredibly, exported to gain hard currency for the Soviet Union. In short, it was a merciless and deliberate act of genocide. The Right Rev. Bishop Vasylij of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church recounted that 1,150 priests, 30 bishops, and thousands of lay members of his church were murdered during the 1930s in Stalin's attack on religion.
It was also pointed out to those of us present that between 1941 and 1953 more than one million Balts were deported from their homelands by Soviet Communists.
The service was sponsored by the Ottawa branches of the Estonian Society, the Latvian National Federation, the Lithuanian Canadian Community and the Ukrainian Canadian Committee, supported by the Byelorussian Canadian Alliance, the Czechoslovak National Association, the Hungarian Bartock Society, the Polish Congress, and the Slovak National League.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, on June 16, 1958, the former Prime Minister of Hungary and his cabinet colleagues were executed for their role in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Their remains, along with those of the many others similarly put to death, were buried by the authorities in numbered graves. The location of these burial sites remains a state secret to this day.
On the eve of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the execution of Mr. Nagy and his associates, the Canadian Government should appeal to the Hungarian Regime to observe basic human decency and adhere to the principles of human rights embodied in the Helsinki Agreement's Final Act, by responding to repeated pleas for the identification of the graves and for permission to reinter the remains at a final resting place of their survivors' own choosing.
At the same time, of course, the Canadian Government should always be doing everything it can to protest and help abate the oppression and persecution of current dissidents within the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and the Baltic States. In particular may I remind the Government of the plight of two young women, Olha Heyko and Iryna Ratushyn-ska, who face 12 years' imprisonment each for "anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda", and remind the Government of the need for representations to be made on their behalf.

June 13, 1983
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I had hoped to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with whom I had discussions about the Atlantic fisheries. In his absence, perhaps the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, or even the Prime Minister, could indicate the latest view of the Government on the restructuring of the fleet and the refinancing of the Atlantic fishing industry.
The Prime Minister, if he chooses to answer, I am sure knows that delay in this case is the deadliest form of denial. No one connected with this industry can have any certainty of purpose, and there are widespread fears that the Government is withholding its assistance to the industry in order to force the companies into a position where they may have to be nationalized.
I am sure that the Government is aware that the problems created by such an atmosphere of uncertainty in the industry must be addressed, particularly when the press has speculated that the aid will not be given until some time in July.
Can the Prime Minister, or someone in his Cabinet, tell the House and the country whether or not the Government will address the problem quickly? Is it in fact negotiating with the provincial Governments in order to transfer the problem there in return for several hundreds of millions of dollars, so that the provincial Governments will have to deal with problems which, according to speculation, could involve the closing of some individual plants?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would only say Amen, to the first part of the question. It is a matter which I have been following quite closely in Cabinet for some time. I think the Hon. Member is expressing the kind of distress that I have also found on this side, that the matter has taken such a long period of time to settle.
The Government's intentions were made known well before the turn of the year. The rest has been a matter of very lengthy negotiations, not amongst ourselves since the Cabinet took the position many months ago, but because we did have to see the provincial Governments. We had to see the people in the industry, and we had to meet the representatives of the fishermen themselves.
I have in mind a recent agreement that was reached between our Minister and the Newfoundland Minister of Fisheries, only to be rejected by the provincial Cabinet. Therefore we had to go back to square one and look for other ways of making improvements to the whole fishing industry in a way which, hopefully, would be conductive to co-operation between
the federal and provincial Governments, the business side and the fishermen's side, meaning the unions.
I repeat that it is not for want of desire or even intent on the part of the Government; it is because the negotiating process itself is a very lengthy one, as the Hon. Member must know from experience, when trying to get provincial Governments to agree amongst themselves and then with us.


INDEPENDENT PROCESSING FIRMS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed either to the Prime Minister of the Chairman of the Economic Development Committee, who has arrived in the Chamber. I appreciate the Prime Minister's answer. I want to bring up another specific matter of concern in the Atlantic region, namely, the fate of the small independent processors and co-ops who have provided a degree of competition and stability to the industry in the past. I am thinking of some companies of which the Minister knows, such as Connors Brothers, United Maritime Fish, Abriel Fisheries Ltd., and so on. Anyone who thinks that the entire Atlantic fishery is in crisis should realize that, out of a total of 250 fish plants in Nova Scotia, 230 have done well.
What will happen in the future to some of these small independent processors who have been absorbed by the big conglomerates and dragged into financial ruin? Can the Minister give us some indication that the position of these independents will be protected? How does he propose to do that?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member indicated, some of the small independents have done very well indeed. I am confident that they will continue to do so within a restructured fishery. As the Prime Minister has indicated, negotiations are proceeding at this very moment, as effectively as they have been for some months.
Furthermore, as the Hon. Member knows, the matter is extremely complex. There has to be a solution which will protect all of these interests and which will make the fishery economical and viable in the long term.


CABINET COMMITTEE DECISION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker,
I simply want to ask the Minister to assure us that, besides the inevitable delays and negotiations that the Prime Minister has referred to, the Cabinet committee members concerned have resolved any differences of opinion that they have, and are no longer split as reports have indicated, and that there will in fact be something done before July?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I do not know what kind of split the
June 13, 1983

Hon. Member is referring to. The Cabinet committee gave a firm mandate to Mr. Kirby and the negotiating team, and Mr. Kirby has been proceeding to negotiate with all the interested parties pursuant to that mandate upon which there is unanimous agreement.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who,
I believe, will share my disappointment and concern with respect to the statistics revealed by the Canadian Government's survey of the labour force for the last six months. This now shows that unhappily within the manufacturing sector companies are not rehiring employees. Knowing the figures for the last six months, will the Minister be forthright in telling us his Department's estimates for the next six months with respect to those tens of thousands of workers in the manufacturing sector? Could he give us his prognosis of their opportunity for recapturing their jobs before the end of this calendar year?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, always the question is what is in the eye of the beholder. What we should be very careful to take note of is that this is now the sixth straight month in which there has been employment gain, and that we have created close to 200,000 additional jobs in this country over the past six months. When you examine it, the pattern is one of very strong, very active performance in the economy. What we must be careful about doing is putting our emphasis on continuing that progress and that momentum, and not to fall into the trap of the Hon. Member of trying to pull that progress back.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I am sorry the Minister did not hear the question. The 200,000 jobs to which he referred are largely in the service and natural resource industry. I am delighted for those people finally being gainfully employed, but 1 am talking about the lack of recovery in the manufacturing sector where tens of thousands of skilled workers are not able to put their skills to work, not only in their own interests but in the interests of the country. Apparently, and the Minister can confirm this, this situation is attributable to the manufacturers' uncertainty and lack of confidence.


RESTORATION OF CONFIDENCE
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister, on behalf of those tens of thousands of skilled manufacturing workers now without a job, is to ask what steps he proposes to take in an attempt to restore confidence and give some certainty to those employers and those jobless Canadians.
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would advise the Hon. Member to go back and take a more careful reading of those figures.


William Herbert Jarvis: I did.


Lloyd Axworthy: What he would find if he did that-


William Herbert Jarvis: I did.


Lloyd Axworthy: -is that in the last month there was a net gain of 32,000 jobs in the manufacturing area. This shows there is a beginning of a positive trend, and with the introduction of the budget of the Minister of Finance in April, which has set out a number of incentives for the private sector, we fully expect that trend will expand and enhance itself in the months to come.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. At a time when medium and small businesses across Canada are struggling to survive, and when a federal Crown corporation is in business to encourage Canadian small and medium sized business to obtain overseas or foreign contracts as a result of a Crown corporation bringing foreign contracts together for Canadian suppliers, does the Minister feel strongly that the Crown corporation should be sensitive to providing those opportunities across Canada as opposed to simply one region of Canada?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I do not know how one should answer such a hypothetical question. The fact is that Crown corporations, by definition, are created in the national interest and, therefore, have to be sensitive to national responsibilities, and that means also regional sensitivities in the national context.


CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION-BRITISH COLUMBIA SUPPLIERS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, if Crown corporations are to have regional sensitivities, particularly during these difficult economic times, 1 want to inform the Minister of State for Economic Development that the Canadian Commercial Corporation provided $554 million worth of orders to suppliers across Canada, yet only 1 per cent of those orders was issued in British Columbia to British Columbia suppliers. Does the Minister support this obvious form of discrimination? If not, what is he prepared to do about it?
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technolo-

June 13, 1983
Oral Questions
gy): Madam Speaker, on issues of procurement and contracting we try to distribute work across the regions. I do not know what specific contracts the Hon. Member is referring to when he talks about discrimination or what were the products involved.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There were $554 million in orders.


Donald James Johnston: If the Hon. Member can produce specific evidence I will be more than pleased to bring it to the attention of the responsible Minister.


ACCESS TO UNITED STATES MARKETS
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Canada stands unattached to any major trading bloc, yet Canada is one of the most trade dependent nations in the world. One-third of our GNP is generated by foreign trade, and one out of every four jobs in dependent upon foreign trade. Given the fact that 70 per cent of Canada's export market is in the United States, is the Government planning any new sets of arrangements with the United States which, while ensuring our own Canadian sovereignty, will also ensure secured access to vital American markets?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Government is seeing its Ministers cross the border almost in a perpetual fashion.


An Hon. Member:: By JetStars.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are constant exchanges of visits between Canadian Government Ministers and Ministers in the United States of America, not only trade Ministers but Communication Ministers, Immigration Ministers, and the Transport Minister.


Miss MacDonald:: And Gerry Regan.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is a great deal of day-to-day contact in the United States. We have several trade officials dispersed across that country in embassies and consulates. The Government realizes, as the Hon. Member puts it, that the United States is and will remain our most important trading partner.
That being said, Madam Speaker, this Government has looked at other possibilities, and I believe there is one candidate who presented another possibility to the Tory convention. It is one that we have not accepted and it is one, I understand, which the Tory Party itself has not accepted, namely, another greater continental link between the two countries.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, I would be concerned about the informality of the relationship that exists and wonder, with the vulnerability of the Canadian market, whether that is an adequate response.


CANADIAN TRADE WITH ASEAN COUNTRIES
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, let us turn for a moment to something else. Canada must also increase its trading relationships not only with the United States but also with the newly industrialized nations. In January of this year the Prime Minister undertook a tour of the Asian Pacific region and returned to report to this House on January 20 that, while no trade agreements had been signed, the ASEAN bloc became "aware of the vast trading possibilities potential between us." Six months later, and given Canada's continuing need for expanded markets to broaden its international trading base and thereby increase job creation in Canada, can the Prime Minister tell the House at this time, specifically six months later, what new trade arrangements have been made or are being negotiated as a result of the Prime Minister's and his other Ministers' visits to the Asian Pacific Rim?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is obviously a question for the Minister of State for International Trade.


Mr. Crosbie:: Where is he?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure he will be happy to answer it when he is in the House.


John Carnell Crosbie: After seeing his family again.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member will recall that my trip to the Pacific Rim was not met with universal favour on the other side of the House. Still I am glad to see that at least one Tory over there thinks it important to find new markets. I can assure the Hon. Member he shares that view with many people on this side, and that is why the Minister for international trade has had an extended trip to the Pacific Rim countries. I know for a fact that the businessmen who were with me, and whom I have met since, thought that trip was very important, and that they see their prospects for trade vastly improved.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. During the 1980 election the Liberal Party promised Canadians cheap gas.


John Carnell Crosbie: What a joke.


Gary Michael Gurbin: The Liberal Government, through the National Energy Program, has given us loss of investment, loss of jobs, and high gasoline prices. For the upcoming discussions and negotiations in July, I would like to know whether or not the Minister has directions or whether he has been given instructions to change the National Energy Program to revitalize the
June 13, 1983

industry and to fulfil the promise he made to Canadians prior to the last election.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I would like to know what is the view of the Hon. Member on the subject. So far this year we have had some negotiations with the Government of Alberta. In 1983 the cash flow of the industry in Canada will be higher than the cash flow of last year, while in the United States it will be the reverse situation. One company was very happy to report the other day that it was not able to sell its assets in Canada because they were the only ones with which it was making profits at this time in its international operations. There are some problems in the oil and gas industry at this time caused by the decline in the international price, but we are doing our best to ensure that the Canadian industry remains as viable as possible.


Gary Michael Gurbin: I say to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that we know the problem. What we need is definitive and constructive action.


EMPLOYMENT CREATED BY DRILLING RIGS
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Labour. He will be aware that 1.5 million Canadians continue to be unemployed. Also, he will know that for each oil or gas rig that operates in Canada there are 700 man-years of employment created, and $10 million worth of investment.
Given those facts, and the fact that two-thirds of all oil rigs in Canada are not functioning now, has the Minsiter of Labour made any representation to the Minister of Energy to change the National Energy Program so that we can get oil rigs back to work and have the best possible long-term job creation program in Canada?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is presenting a situation which is well under consideration in terms of job creation and on many occasions has been expressed in the House by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. If the Hon. Member would like me to make representations on job creation, I can assure him that the Minister is fully aware of the situation, is consistently acting on creating jobs in a variety of ways, and is fully cognizant of the situation.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The McDonald Royal Commission took four years to prepare three volumes of recommendations, costing Canadian taxpayers $10 million. If
Oral Questions
one phrase can sum up the essence of that Commission, it would be the ultimate necessity for ministerial responsibility over the Security Service.
In light of the ability of the Director General to override the Minister, even if the Minister objects to the matter, why have the Minister and the Government stripped the heart out of the McDonald Royal Commission recommendations? Why have they repudiated it? Why in these circumstances is the Government violating a basic tent of parliamentary democracy, namely, ministerial responsibility over the Security Service?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I disagree with the Hon. Member's suggestion that we have failed to consider the main recommendations of the McDonald Commission. We did, in fact, accept the principal recommendations which included the separation of security services and the creation of a civilian agency that would provide for greater control by and accountability to the House of Commons.


ROLE OF REVIEW COMMITTEE
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question on the same subject is directed to the same Minister. In view of the three Privy Councillors who will form and comprise the review committee with which I agree, and in view of the fact that the Government appoints them, that they all have an oath of office, and would be pre-eminent Canadians, will the Minister tell the House why they would not be entrusted with Cabinet confidences that are held by the Security Service? Is the Government in a position to answer that question?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, in so far as the point in the former question about the power of the Minister in relation to the power of the Director is concerned, the system composed in the legislation, copied incidentally from Australian parliamentary democracy which works very well, was designed to assure that in moving the agency from the RCMP where there was considerable public assurance and confidence that there was no partisan abuse of the agency it provided for the direction and safeguard that the Director would have the final authority only in relation to a particular case, not in relation to the over-all direction of the agency. Also it provided that there would be an assurance the new agency, for which the Solicitor General would be accountable to Parliament, would clearly not be subject to any partisan direction and that it could not be abused by the government of the day. That is the whole reason for the safeguard.
So far as confidences of Privy Councillors are concerned, that is a general position the Government has taken in the access to information law and in the proposal in this area. Great progress has been made in making the Government fully accountable and in making its documents fully accessible. To

June 13, 1983
Oral Questions
make Cabinet confidences available would be damaging to the structure of Cabinet Government as it is known in Canada.
I look forward very much to discussing these relatively technical issues with the Hon. Member and with other Hon. Members opposite in committee, when the Bill proceeds to committee. Meanwhile 1 think the Hon. Member would agree with me and with commentators who have analysed the Bill that it represents a considerable step forward in safeguarding the privacy and civil liberties of Canadians.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the growing concern among Canadians as to the economic viability of the nuclear industry in Canada, the ongoing problems with waste storage, and in terms of the export of our Candu technology to such countries as Argentina, countries which are clearly interested in using the nuclear fuel cycle to create atomic weapons, would the Minister tell the House at what point he is prepared to have a full public inquiry into the entire nuclear industry and nuclear cycle in Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I appear regularly in front of committees of the House and the Hon. Member never came to question me on that subject. The Candu reactor is a technology developed by Canadians which has worked very well so far. As long as a country wants to sign the appropriate international obligations about utilization of that energy, I think we should be able to sell that technology, because the Candu reactor is one of the best performing instruments in atomic energy around the world.


James Ross Fulton: I have attended committees around the House for the last four years and I rarely saw the Minister of Energy there. I remind him that this is Question Period and that is why I am asking the question.


SELECTION OF REACTOR SITES IN NORTHERN REGIONS
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, approximately ten days ago I asked the Minister about the Slowpoke III proposals that have been put out. The Minister said that he did not know anything about them. He must know by now that his regional directors across Canada are being asked to evaluate siting in at least 400 communities for Slowpoke III nuclear reactors across northern Canada. Would he tell the House, and northerners who might be watching, just exactly what kind of public process or public inquiry there will be in relation to the Slowpoke III, which has a very dangerous waste storage problem for spent fuel?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I think there is no danger at present. Some of these plans have been in operation in universities, and some technicians are looking at the possibility of using that technology in many other places in Canada, but there are no specific plans to proceed at this time with that. If we decide to proceed we will take action to ensure that there is the appropriate consultation with the localities.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It appeared that it would have been useful, prior to Cabinet taking a decision with respect to a Canadian National takeover of Cast, that the combines investigation hearings into that matter should have been completed, that the CTC hearings should have been completed, and that, at the very minimum, the Standing Committee on Transport should have had an opportunity to examine further the matters surrounding this situation. Could the Minister indicate whether or not Cabinet has now issued an Order in Council authorizing Canadian National's full takeover the Cast and its group?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Madam Speaker, indeed Cabinet authorized CN to negotiate an alliance of some kind with Cast, but the deal has not yet been done. The order in council is an authorization to negotiate on certain terms.
On the subject raised by my Hon. friend, first on the combines investigation, I already answered that question saying that I had consulted with the Minister responsible who told me there was no objection to any negotiation. On the second point, the CTC inquiry, it is the practice for both the private and public sector in Canada to conclude first and then refer to the CTC for approval or denial. That is the normal practice. We proceeded in that way in the knowledge that, in a previous case, the acquisition of Dart by CP ships, on the one-third basis, the CTC rendered a favourable decision, justified by the requirements of vertical integration. With respect to the committee, my hon. friend is a member of it. He can question the President of CNR at any time.


POSSIBILITY OF FREIGHT RATE WAR ON ATLANTIC SHIPPING ROUTES
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, the Minister will be aware that any action by Cabinet may very well precipitate a massive North Atlantic Conference shipping rate war. Has the Minister taken advice and consulted with his Cabinet colleagues with respect to Cabinet
June 13, 1983

not taking a decision until every public opportunity for objection to this move has been given? Has he done that, or will he give the House the undertaking that that will be done?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend raised this question the other day. I mentioned that members of the Cabinet were present at that time and consequently could listen to him. Indeed, this was done. However, the general result of honouring the requirements indicated by my hon. friend would be that we would have to wait for a year or so for all these authorizations, the Cabinet committee, the CTC, the Committee of the House of Commons on Transport, et cetera. There is a transaction to be made. It cannot wait until all parties have agreed to it. We are following the traditional pattern in Canadian decision making in these matters.


FISHERIES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. In answer to a question from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Central Nova, the Prime Minister said with reference to fisheries that the delay was as a consequence of detailed negotiations with a lot of people other than the Government. The Minister said there was no split in the Cabinet committee. Everybody knows there has been a split. What position has the Cabinet committee taken in its negotiations with the Provinces and the industry with respect to nationalization of the offshore fleet?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the point I made is that there was a mandate given by the Cabinet committee to Mr. Kirby and his team of negotiators. They are currently negotiating pursuant to that mandate.
There have been extensive negotiations with the Province of Newfoundland. As the Prime Minister indicated, agreement has been reached on at least two documents between our Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Fisheries of the Province of Newfoundland. There have been meetings that 1 participated in, with Premier Peckford. I had exchanges of correspondence pursuant to that with Premier Peckford. This week there are ongoing negotiations with the banks. The Hon. Member will appreciate that the bankers have a very real interest in how these negotiations materialize. This is what the Prime Minister was referring to, that there are detailed negotiations being conducted simultaneously to the extent possible on all fronts.
Oral Questions
I can assure the Hon. Member that there was complete agreement on the mandate which Mr. Kirby and his negotiators are carrying forward on behalf of the Government.


REOPENING OF FISH PLANTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I remind the Minister that he has a mandate under the Fisheries Act to deal with all matters relating to fisheries. I therefore ask him, and not the Minister of State for Economic Development, to tell us if the decision has been reached on restructuring. Can he tell us what plants will be reopened, if all of the down deep-sea plants will be reopened and, if not, what plants will stay down and not be reopened? That question is critical to the thousands of plant workers and fishermen who are awaiting a decision by the Minister.


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to report to the Hon. Member that the Minister of Fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador and myself have reached an agreement in principle. Since that time Cabinet has confirmed that agreement in principle which I reached with him. He has asked for several other amendments. Our Cabinet has agreed to them. All we are waiting for at this moment is for the different parties to give their consent to that agreement. I can tell the Hon. Member that, the sooner that is done, the sooner we will bring stability to the fishery in Newfoundland.


TEXTILES AND CLOTHING
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (External Relations).
Madam Speaker, I shall continue to defend the interests of my province, as I have always done in the past. Hon. Members are asking what I intend to do. I have a question for the Minister of State (External Relations). It is now two weeks ago since the Minister answered in the House that the Minister responsible would be meeting the garment industry within the next two weeks. Can the Minister inform the House today when the meeting requested by the industry's Association will take place?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (External Relations):: Madam Speaker, the entire issue of the textile and garment industry is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade. When I answered the other day, I was doing so on his behalf, but since my colleague is now in the House, I think it would be up to him to answer this question.

June 13, 1983
Oral Questions


RENEGOTIATION OF QUOTAS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, can the Minister inform the House today whether a meeting will take place between the Minister and the garment industry, a meeting that has been requested for the purpose of discussing the renegotiation of quotas? If so, could the Minister inform the House when this meeting will take place?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member may not be aware of the fact that I, along with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, met with representatives of the industry who are concerned about the present increase in the level of imports and garments. We have had thorough discussions. Pursuant to that meeting, a dossier was placed before the Cabinet for consideration. That consideration is now under way. I expect there will be a decision and possible action by Government in the very near future.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. There have been negotiations and discussions for some six months with respect to the pilots' strike at Eastern Provincial Airways. Weekend press reports indicate there has been an agreement. Will the Minister share with the House some of the details as to when this agreement may be put into effect and as to when that company might be able to meet the transportation regulations in this country so that there will again be full service for the citizens of Atlantic Canada?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, the agreement in essence boils down to the fact that the striking pilots return to the payroll on June 10. The replacement pilots will work until August 30 as the striking pilots use up 50 per cent of their credited leave time and go through retraining. Following retraining, the striking pilots will be returned to the position they occupied prior to the strike. These, in essence, are the elements of the agreement.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. We have been informed today that the United States has in fact asked for approval to test the Cruise missile in Canada. The communique issued by the Minister of National Defence indicates two things. The first is that the proposed test program falls within the terms of the Canada-U.S. test and evaluation
program agreement. And, in a somewhat contradictory way, the Minister indicates that officials of the Department of National Defence will now begin an assessment of the proposed test program. Given that there appears to be some contradiction, 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister if the proposal submitted by the U.S. falls within the terms foursquare of the agreement signed between Canada and the United States. Will the review process that is to be undertaken be undertaken in such a way as to allow for public input?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct. There was a request made this morning to the Minister of National Defence. He consulted with me and we did announce this morning that the request had been received.
As to the question the Hon. Member puts, I must point out to him that the weapons testing agreement that had been signed many months ago with the United States was an umbrella agreement. What the Minister is stating now is that the request we have fits within that umbrella agreement. In other words, it is not a request for the test that would be made outside of the agreement or outside of the over-all understanding.
The purpose for the Minister and his Department now will be to examine and to assess, as the Minister says, the precise request, now that he has ascertained that it comes under the agreement. That is all that the Hon. Member's first paragraph or first quotation means, that it is within the terms of the umbrella agreement. But there was never any general understanding or particular one that everything submitted to us within the umbrella agreement would be agreed to. Now we have to look at each specific test, Madam Speaker.


PUBLICIZING OF REQUEST
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister further if it will be possible for the submission that has now been received by the Canadian Government to be made available to the Members of the House of Commons, as was the test agreement, in order that we can determine, on behalf of the people whom we represent, what effect this particular proposal or set of proposals will have on the communities or areas that will be affected by the testing. Further, I ask him again if there will be further opportunity for public input prior to the Government making a final decision.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot say whether the request itself could be made public. I have seen it; I have not read it. I would think that is a question on which I would have to seek advice.
As to the concern of the Hon. Member, I do not think he has to wait to see any fine print to make up his mind as to whether we should test the Cruise or not. The parameters are well known. It is a non-armed missile. It is a request which comes
June 13, 1983

under the two-track decision, or at least it is a request which Cabinet is considering as related to the two-track decision of NATO taken in December, 1979, and obviously it will involve testing over some part of Canada. If the Hon. Member needs more details to know whether he is in favour of it or opposed to it, perhaps he could ask me what those details are and I would attempt to give him the answer.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 personally do not require any further information to determine that I am opposed to it. My concern is that the public of Canada should be made fully aware of the implications of the announcement which was made today.


GOVERNMENT'S DECISION-TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, is there any doubt in the mind of the Prime Minister that Canada has now committed itself fully to promote Cruise testing within this umbrella agreement as submitted by the U.S. Government to the Canadian Government, as of today's announcement? Will the Prime Minister undertake not to announce his decision, if there is any decision to be made, while the House is not in session during the summer months?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as to the first part of the question, I would point out to the Hon. Member that he is going back to something that I believe his Party has been saying for quite a while, that we had been asked, that we had given an answer, and so on. I think now at least he should be recognizing that we have not been asked before. We were only asked this morning to test the nonarmed Cruise missile. The answer will be forthcoming and I would like to give it as soon as practical, Madam Speaker. I do not know how long it will take to examine the specifics of that request. If it happens before the end of June, we will certainly inform the House. If we have not made up our minds before that, Madam Speaker, and the assessment is not finished, then it could only be announced some time later. Whether it would be appropriate to call the House back some time in July or August, assuming the decision can be made then, is a consideration the Hon. Member may want to put to the various House Leaders so they could examine it.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ON ISSUE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and deals with the same subject. Unlike the NDP, I think that we would rather debate this before the decision is made rather than afterward.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: An official with the Prime Minister's office has said that the decision would be made in late summer. I wonder if the Prime Minister could guarantee us that we will have an opportunity to debate this matter before the final decision is made.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not understand the nature of the jibe at the NDP. The spokesman for the NDP just made his position clear, which, I take it, is that of his Party, that he is opposed to testing of the non-armed Cruise missile. I understand from the other side of the House that each candidate for the leadership and, presumably, Mr. Mulroney who has won, is in favour of testing the non-armed Cruise missile. Therefore, what is the debate about at this stage, Madam Speaker? If the Hon. Member wants to debate it, tomorrow is-


Erik Nielsen: Stop sitting on the fence.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member for Yukon has moved geographically, Madam Speaker. I think this is a sign of things to come. I hope to see him move further and further until he
is-


Some Hon. Members:: Out, out!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the Hon. Members opposite will give me four minutes more, I will be out, and happy to be so. With the Member for Yukon, it will take a little longer, but we will see him behind the curtains and out of Parliament Hill, I think, before the year is out.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, Madam Speaker, that presumably there is a House Leader over there. If the Opposition still want to debate this, they can raise the subject tomorrow and we will hear all of those fine speeches from the Tories as to why we should support the testing of the non-armed Cruise missile.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, we want to debate this with the information on what the Americans are proposing in our hands. There are many points in the umbrella agreement with which we are not in full agreement.


NATURE OF REQUEST FOR TESTING
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. I would ask him if the proposal he has now received from the United States is a proposal that, as one would gather from paragraph 4 of note 64 which is the umbrella agreement, is a project arrangement providing implementation arrangements for each test of evaluation projects that shall be negotiated and concluded by the Department of National Defence. Can he assure us that he will pass this to the Cabinet, and can he assure us that we will have a chance to debate it with the document in our hands so that we will know what we are talking about?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, first I would like to make the position of the Department clear. The umbrella agreement signed in February for the possible testing of some of the American Cruise missiles, was not a commitment to test any of them. The only commitment that was made, according to this agreement, was

June 13, 1983
Oral Questions
that the Americans have to make a request and then we will decide if we accept it or not. We are not committed to test anything until the request is made.
This morning we did received a request from the United States Defence Department to test the unarmed guided Cruise missile. We must now look into the document that they have submitted to us. As the Eton. Member who just asked the question is a former Minister of Defence, he should know that these documents are confidential. At some time, Canada and the United States might together agree to declassify some of the information. As far as the Hon. Member is concerned, he should therefore know that, between the two countries, the document is confidential and I cannot divulge the contents of it.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INITIATE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I direct a question to the Prime Minister that deals with the same subject. One of the great weaknesses of the umbrella agreement is that it does not call for any of the subsequent proposals by the United States to be debated in Parliament. The agreement does not call for parliamentary approval.
This is the first request made under that umbrella agreement. It therefore becomes a precedent as to how our Government follows it. We on this side very much want to see that the precedent laid down is one of having parliamentary debate on the issue. Will the Prime Minister set the tone for anything that is agreed upon under the umbrella agreement by bringing this first request into the House of Commons as a Government issue to be debated by Parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I said, there is an opposition day tomorrow.


An Hon. Member:: This is a Government day.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is just possible that the NDP would want to agree with the Hon. Member and debate this subject tomorrow. We would be happy to discuss it. As a matter of fact the House knows that I am always ready to make deals. If we could get the Crow into Committee this week, say, I am sure I could convince our House Leader to find a day next week to debate this important subject.
As to the fact that it is not in the umbrella agreement, surely the Hon. Member, as a former Minister, should realize that when we sign an agreement with the United States we do not undertake to tell the United States how Parliament will conduct its affairs.
The Hon. Member says that we should set an example. I would say, somewhat nostalgically to her, that if she had set an example in the Fall of 1979 when she was Minister before
going to Brussels to sign the NATO two-track agreement, and if there had been a debate in the House, perhaps the positions of the Government and Parliament would be somewhat different now. When we became the Government we were faced with the two-track decision.


An Hon. Member:: That is a cheap shot.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. Members opposite talk about cheap shots. I have always said that we supported the two-track decision. That has been my position. But the Hon. Member is in a very sorry position to say it should have been debated in this House when it was a fundamental decision for the alliance, and 1 never saw it being debated in this House by any means.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, June 9, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, I have a 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 registrer concern over Bill C-85, an Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex.
The nature of this petition is to request that Clause 14, the clause that provides the potential for the Government of Canada to do all buying and selling of all agricultural products, be removed from Bill C-85. I hope we can have further discussion on this clause before the Bill passes.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from the constituents of Portage-Marquette in the Province of Manitoba. Approximately 400 people have asked that the buy and sell powers of Canagrex be removed. They point out that they are in favour of those parts of the proposed Crown corporation, Canagrex, that provide additional support for Canadian agricultural exports, but are not in favour of the Government receiving the buy and sell powers which are embodied in Clause 14. We hope that Parliament
June 13, 1983

will not enact this legislation until Clause 14 has been removed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to offer the following petition regarding the amending of the Broadcasting Act to include abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation on the basis of sex, asking for its removal from the Act.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to say that today, Canada has lost a great Canadian in the person of the Hon. Senator Maurice Lamontagne. I am speaking today because Senator Lamontagne was born in Mont-Joli, a small town about 20 miles from Rimouski. He received his formal education at a college classique in Rimouski, and was a Member of this House and President of the Privy Council before being appointed Senator. Madam Speaker, with your permission, I want to express my admiration for Senator Lamontagne who was a great Canadian and a well-known economist, a person of whom the people of the Lower St. Lawrence region are extremely proud. All of us, either directly or indirectly, have benefited from his experience and the years he spent teaching young people at various Canadian educational institutions and also when he acted as economic adviser to two illustrious Liberal Prime Ministers, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 also wish to express personally, at this time, since the Hon. Member has already done so on behalf of us all, the admiration I had for this man of many merits to whom we owe so much, both as an intellectual and as a source of moral leadership, as the Hon. Member implied. 1 must say, however, that to many of us, Senator Lamontagne was also the archetype of the academic, of the man who stood above the fray, but nevertheless decided to plunge into politics with all the problems and ingratitude such a decision signifies. He did so out of dedication to his country, and he believed it was his duty to enter the political arena with all the trouble that awaits those who take this step. For me personally, Mr. Lamontagne was a truly outstanding man and a good friend whom I shall always remember with feelings of profound gratitude.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself may I join in the expressions of sympathy that my colleagues opposite, including the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), have expressed.
Tributes to Late Senator Lamontagne
I was privileged to serve on more than one committee with the late Senator Lamontagne. Those of us who denigrate the committee work of both the Senate and this House would find inspiration in the contributions that the late Senator made to committee work. As a Member of the Senate Reform Committee, one of my greatest regrets is that I will not have the benefit of his participation or testimony before the Committee.
1 knew that he held very strong views and I am not sure 1 would have agreed with all of them, but 1 would have respected them. I think I speak for every member of that Committee in expressing a very particular and specific regret.
On a personal note, I had the great privilege, pleasure and enjoyment of travelling to Mexico to meet with the Senator's daughter there. I even delivered a parcel to his daughter from the Senator. 1 remember the kind moments that the Senator and 1 had together following that trip discussing his family and mine.
On behalf of all my colleagues in this Party I must say that we have lost a distinguished Canadian and, I think for most of us, a very warm and endearing friend.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I want to join in expressing our sympathy on the passing of Senator Maurice Lamontagne and express the condolences of this Party to his family and friends.
One thinks of the many things that the senator stood for. As an example, he called for a Standing Committee on Science and Technology, recognizing the importance of new technologies in our society. Perhaps it is a tremendous tribute to him that the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates is about to make or has just made that recommendation to the House. I think that is a very good testimony to him.

I also knew him as member of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, and he has always presented the fair and constructive federal position on the future of Canada, on the Constitution and on federalism.

On behalf of this Party may I express to his family and friends our deepest sympathy.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I too would like to add a few words because Senator Lamontagne and I were co-chairmen of two joint parliamentary committees.

I would like to say, Madam Speaker, that I probably had closer contact with him than most other people now in this

June 13, 1983
Introduction of Bills
Chamber, since we jointly chaired one parliamentary committee on the Constitution and for a considerable time another one.
I believe he is one of the outstanding minds which I have come across in Parliament. He was able to turn his mind not only to his principal subject of economics but also to any other subject which was at hand. In addition to that, he was a thorough gentleman. He was a faithful friend, a good companion, and much beloved of those with whom he was in contact.
I would like to extend my regards, and those of others from this House who served with him on committees. To his wife and family, our most sincere sympathy.


Madam Speaker:: I believe that Hon. Members will want me to express the condolences of all members in a letter to the family of Senator Lamontagne on the occasion of the deep bereavement suffered by the family. If I may, I should like to express my personal admiration for Senator Lamontagne whose career has been so widely acclaimed by many parliamentarians and the general public. It is always hazardous to try to sum up someone's career, but I think that the least that can be said about Senator Lamontagne is that he was a firm believer in national unity and that, above all, he strove to find ways and means to cement that unity which is so essential to the various provinces of Canada.
On your behalf and in my name, I offer our heartfelt condolences to the family of Senator Lamontagne.




Jean-Luc Pepin: for leave to introduce Bill C-163, an Act to establish the Canadian Aviation Safety Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today. Nos. 4,577, 4,862 and 4,863.


Mrs. Cossitt: 1.	Does the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation list the properties it has repossessed due to defaults on mortgage payments with (a) multiple listing brokers (b) trust companies (c) any other type of real estate agent?
2.	Does the Corporation call tenders for the listing of these properties and (a) if so (i) is it a public or an invited tender (ii) what were the complete details of all tenders called in the Constituency of Leeds-Grenville for the past five years, including the names and addresses of those who tendered, the amounts tendered and the date of tender (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	(a), (b) and (c) CMHC lists single units and small multiple unit projects for sale on MLS through local real estate boards. Where MLS is not available, properties are listed with active brokers in the area who are members of the local real estate board. Large multiple unit projects are offered for sale to the private sector through requests for proposals from potential, interested purchasers through advertisements and direct mailings.
2.	(a) No. (i) and (ii) N/A. (b) The large volume of individual units handled by CMHC prohibits the calling of tenders for individual units. The request for proposal technique has proven to be the best method of disposal of large multiple unit projects to date.


Mr. McKinnon: Is the Department of National Defence spending $17,700,300 under two separate contracts with Aviation Electric Ltd. to provide aircraft accessories and aircraft accountable advance spares and, if so, for what aircraft are the spares and accessories?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The Department of Supply and Services awarded on behalf of the Department of National Defence two contracts to Aviation Electric Ltd. relating to 21 different aircraft types as per the attached list.
Repair and Overhaul Service	$ 13,700,000
Accountable Advance Spares	$ 4,300,000
Total	$18,000,000
Aircraft
CF 104 Starfighter CF 101 Voodoo
CF 116 Freedom Fighter (CF5) (includes Bleed Valves)
CR 114 Tutor (CL-41) (includes Bleed Valves)
CC 115 Buffalo (DHC-5) (includes Fuel Controls)
CC 130 Hercules (C-130)
CH 135 Twin Huey (CUH-IN)
CP 121 Tracker (CS2F-3)
CH 124 Sea King (CHSS-2)
CT 117 Falcon

IMHSi IHIIHIIM llllllll 11 ill III
June 13, 1983

CC 113&A Labrador & Voyageur CC 137 Bceing 707 CT 133 Silver Star (T33)
CH 136 Kiowa (COH-58A)
CC 129 Dakota (DC3)
CP 140 Aurora
CH 147 Chinook
CT 138 Twin Otter (DHC-6)
CT 134 Musketeer
CC 109 Cosmopolitan (CL66)
CH 118 Iroquois (CUH-1H)


Mr. McKinnon: Is the Department of National Defence, rather than some other Department, paying $142,656 to establish the principal parameters governing the effectiveness of flocculants to remove particulate matter in coal washery effluents and provision of criteria for the preparation of superior flocculants for specific application and, if so, for what reason?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
contract was awarded by the Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and not the Department of National Defence.


David P. Smith: 1 would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. McKenzie:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about a question I placed on the Order Paper on November 18, 1981. I raised this question last week; it is question No. 3,441. It is with regard to the three Cabinet Ministers who took three JetStars to Winnipeg on the same day.
The reason I am raising it so soon again is that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is supplying the manifest information to members of the news media but is refusing to supply the information to Hon. Members of Parliament. 1 would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make inquiries of the Minister of Transport, and could he inform me what the Minister is going to do about it?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I cannot advise the Hon. Member what the Minister will do about it, but I will assure my hon. friend that I will take it up with the Minister and convey the Hon. Member's request to him.


A. Daniel McKenzie: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, in this question to the Parliamentary Secretary I asked who they were transporting on these aircraft. I was wondering if the Parliamentary Secretary would inquire whether the three Ministers were taking relatives to Winnipeg or were they transporting Liberal campaign workers to work in the provincial election of 1981 in Manitoba?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will raise these concerns with the Minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Canagrex



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan that Bill C-85, an Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products in Canada, be read a third time and do pass.
Marcel Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be taking part in the debate on third reading of this Bill, and I am looking forward to the moment when the question will be put. We are going to have a chance to do something positive for Canada. This will be another step towards a stronger Canada and a more prosperous future.
This morning, I was very pleased to hear the Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) express his agreement with the principle of Canagrex. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that, with a few exceptions, we have varying views on the way this Bill should be implemented. However, I wonder who understands agriculture and the farmer. Is it the consumer? Is it the editorial writers or the organizations that stand up for the rights of farmers in this country?
Mr. Speaker, I think that those in the best position to judge are the large organizations that defend the interests of our producers. When I sat on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, almost all of these organizations supported this legislation aimed at exporting Canadian agricultural products throughout the world. I noticed that all provincial organizations and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and almost all its branches were almost totally in support of the Bill's concept.
Nowdays, it is fashionable to be aggressive and to criticize pratically everything. However, if we are to progress, we must make constructive decisions and have confidence in the future. This legislation is based on the confidence we have in our farmers, processors and business people, and on our confidence in our natural ability to produce and market even more than we are doing at the present time.
This legislation offers Canadians in the agri-food industry a set of new mechanisms that will help them compete on foreign markets. These objectives deserve our support, Mr. Speaker. On many occasions, the Minister has said that he would like to see an agricultural export corporation very shortly. He has said this so many times and for so long, that some people wondered whether the Bill would ever be passed at all. Quite sincerely, I am very glad to see that we are now seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, and that Canagrex has almost become a reality.

June 13, 1983
Canagrex
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Agriculture sat for four months. We have been sitting for hours to consider the third reading and final stages of this legislation. Thirty-two or 37 different groups took part in our discussions. All the major organizations contributed their ideas, and today, I must say that, as I said earlier, all the provincial federations, all those who are in fact working in the agri-food industry, are practically unanimous in saying that the corporation is necessary. Once again, I would like to say that we have some differences as to the implementation of this legislation, but it would seem that on the whole, most people approve of this legislation, which will have a very positive effect on the agricultural industry.
With a $12.3 million budget for three years, a Board of 11 Directors and a staff of 20, Canagrex will be a small but powerful corporation whose main role will be to act as catalyst between foreign buyers and Canada's producers, processors and exporters. It will be particularly useful to small businesses by helping them steer through the uncharted waters of new foreign markets. As one of our colleagues from Prince Edward Island so aptly put it last week, we in this country have major organizations which look after our main crops, but we also have very remote regions which need that assistance to be more dynamic, more productive, and to export more. During his trips abroad, the Minister soon became convinced that there was a need for such services, and he constantly noticed that a demand for our food products did exist. Unfortunately, nothing was being done to translate that demand into export orders. No one bothered to find out whether the necessary measures were being taken to identify those markets and follow through to the final sale.
The Minister is not saying that our export efforts have failed, for Canada's agricultural food export industry is strong and flourishing, as evidenced by the fact that last year we exported close to $9 billion worth of agricultural products and had a trade balance surplus of $3.1 billion. In spite of that, a number of sectors of the agricultural food industry throughout Canada could be improved if appropriate steps were taken to find new markets for our increasing production.
Canada needs exports because they are at the core of our economic activities. They are vital for our economy as a whole. Since our domestic market is rather small and cannot absorb everything we can produce, we must have foreign markets to achieve our full productive capacity as a nation and as individuals. In addition, Canada being one of the three or four countries which export more food than they import, it has the obligation, generally speaking, of helping others who increasingly suffer from famine. On a per capita basis, we have five times more agricultural land than the world average. It would be a shame to leave that land fallow when hundreds of millions of people are going hungry and would like our food.
I should think there is no need for me to dwell on these points because they are rather obvious. I would simply like to mention a few features of the new corporation and emphasize the guarantees that Canagrex will continue to serve the agricultural food industry.
As Hon. Members know, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Canagrex is to promote, facilitate and, to a limited extent, engage in exports of agricultural and food products. Most members of the Board of Directors of Canagrex will come from the private sector and the President will be responsible for the operations. He or she will be on the Board of Directors and will exercise the duties assigned to the Board.
Canagrex will help private businesses as well as marketing councils and co-operatives in various ways such as financial services through loans or guarantees, advertising, consultation and information facilities, the search for markets, joint undertakings, as well as through grants or contributions to help develop and promote products, and provide the necessary infrastructure. Practically every group which appeared before the Standing Committee agreed on the need for Canagrex to provide credit, advertising and market identification services. Other groups, however, questioned the need for Canagrex to engage in the export trade. They feared that such an initiative could result in unfair competition with the private sector. I believe that those concerns are adequately met by the amendments to the Bill, as I intend to demonstrate.
In addition to the fact that most members of the board will be appointed from the private sector, a Policy Advisory Committee will be established. It will include representatives from all parts of the Canadian agri-food industry. Thus, Canagrex will benefit from the experience and the advice of the private and public sectors. Canagrex will not import, export or process products on its own initiative. It is not a marketing cooperative. Its services will only be provided on a voluntary basis. The most important amendment made to the Bill is probably the restriction placed on the powers of Canagrex to engage in the export trade. The Bill clearly states that Canagrex will not engage in the export of Canadian agricultural and food products to other countries except from state to state or in cooperation with, at the request of or jointly with the private sector.
It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the Canagrex concept is similar to what many other countries have already done to increase their share of the agri-food export market. As the Minister of Agriculture has pointed out this morning, we already have in Canada large organizations for the grain industry, such as the Canadian Wheat Board in Western Canada. This sector of the agricultural industry is very well organized and the Canadian Wheat Board has the same powers to purchase and export as Canagrex will have. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I find it surprising that so many Members opposite are shocked that the Minister is making a praiseworthy effort to give Canagrex the same privileges and the
June 13, 1983

same rights so that it may increase our export trade throughout the world. This is not a plot aimed at taking over the industry, as several Members opposite have said, but rather a response to meet acknowledged needs. I am firmly convinced that Canagrex will meet a real need and that it will give Canada the means to fill the ever increasing gap between the Canadian agri-food sector and our competitors. Reference was also made this morning to other countries which use similar instruments and are becoming increasingly aggressive on the export market.
I noticed recently that England, France, the United States and Mexico now have legislation to provide similar tools to Canagrex and are becoming increasingly aggressive on the export markets. In Canada, we are told to be very careful and to ask other people to deal with the problem. I am not blaming the system, Mr. Speaker. In the past, many people have tried to export our agricultural products, and as I said earlier, who knows agriculture better? Is it the merchants, the farmers or the agricultural organizations? I seriously wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the major agricultural organizations are really more knowledgeable about the needs of the Canadian farmer and the needs of the export and foreign markets.
So, personally, I am not distressed about the fact that powers are to be given to that corporation, and that such powers will also be restricted. The day Canagrex will be going abroad to identify trading opportunities, it will inform all the producers and processers who are in a position to develop such opportunities by themselves, in co-operation with Canagrex.
It is clearly provided in the Bill that Canagrex will not handle products that come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian Dairy Commission, so long as it has not been requested to do so. Whenever this will prove useful, Canagrex will resort to existing government services, such as those of trade commissioners.
I would like again to deal with the matter of checks on Canagrex activities, and suggest that this House has no cause for concern over the powers which will allow Canagrex to discharge the following responsibilities. First, Canagrex will have to identify and supply information on markets, and supply promotional information services.
Mr. Speaker, I see no production problem in this country at present, but we do have selling and exporting difficulties. I appreciate the fact that Canagrex will provide promotional and informational services that will be very important to farmers, namely with respect to the granting of loans and guarantees and the underwriting of insurance. When I was working with the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I have been aware all along that several of my colleagues were suggesting that Canagrex, or whatever corporation is to be established, should grant loans, assign guarantees and underwrite insurance. In my view, those requirements are essential to that corporation's efficiency, because on export markets
Canagrex
now the majority of our producers do not have the know-how and expertise needed to penetrate those markets, and often those who have tried in the past, for a lack of know-how or information, have simply gone bankrupt or otherwise obtained contracts that were not profitable, where buyers failed to pay their debt or failed to pay for the products that were purchased.
Canagrex should also enter into joint ventures with private companies. It will act as a Crown agent in the negotiation of contracts between governments. The trend today in international trade, is for nations to deal on the government level. We have seen how North-African nations, other Arab countries and even Mexico, and the USSR are increasingly anxious to deal directly with government-controlled corporations. So, in my view, it is in Canada's best interests to have this corporation, which will be limited, which will have an annual budget and which will be subject every year to the Auditor General's examination.
Therefore, I want to suggest to my colleague opposite that both the grain industry and the Canadian Dairy Commission will remain outside the jurisdiction of the Canagrex corporation. Whenever Canagrex will be collecting products for an export contract, it will use public adjudicators and act in such a way as not to affect the competitive position of any agri-food export operation. It will not duplicate the work of the Canadian Wheat Board, as I said, nor that of the Canadian Dairy Commission. It will handle products falling under these organizations only at their request.
Five years after its inception, the performance of Canagrex will be subject to a complete review by the Standing Committee on Agriculture. As a further guarantee, as I said, the Auditor General can proceed to an exhaustive audit of the corporation's operations.
Indeed, in his latest report, the Auditor General has already pointed to the merits of Canagrex which, even before being established, was already taking very practical steps to become very dynamic and eliminate any concern it may have aroused.
To my mind, those clauses provide an overall protection for the private sector and the taxpayers. Indeed, we have taken the necessary steps to make sure that Canagrex will exercise its powers in a responsible manner.
Canagrex will provide tremendous opportunities especially with regard to products other than our traditional exports- wheat, feed crops, oilseeds and meat. A few commodities identified in joint studies carried out by Agriculture Canada and Industry, Trade and Commerce also include maple syrup, field peas, honey and other horticultural products.
I should like to add, Mr. Speaker, as one of my colleagues has said it so well last week, we have many productions in this country, especially at the horticultural level where producers, as opposed to other areas, have a surplus and they will now be in a position to be more dynamic on world markets. And also

June 13, 1983
Canagrex
consider Mr. Speaker, that Canagrex should be most helpful with respect to all commodities especially in the central and eastern areas of the country so that we may become more dynamic on export markets and help reduce our trade balance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would some Hon. Members care to address questions to the speaker who has just resumed his seat.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order rather than to question the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Dionne). I do so in an effort to expedite the debate this afternoon. I have had some discussion with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). We would like to propose that our two or three remaining 20-minute periods this afternoon before 5.45 p.m. be split so that we can put forward two speakers. I recognize that the Minister or any Member of the House will reserve his or her right to utilize ten minutes in the form of questions. As far as House rules are concerned, Mr. Speaker, I realize that you have some difficulty with that. The responsibility would be placed on Members of my Party to discipline themselves and to watch the clock.
We would have to proceed on the basis of unanimous consent. Discussions have been held, and 1 think the Minister would agree with that proposal. If the House agrees, we would appreciate it very much.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have no objections on this side as long as they divide the 20 minutes amongst themselves and agree not to use any more than 20 minutes between the two speakers.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to support this recommendation in order to provide an opportunity for the maximum of speakers on this critical topic.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, first 1 want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) the agriculture critic for our Party, for doing such an outstanding job in the presentation of the facts with respect to his position, our Party's position and the farmers' position as it relates to Canagrex. I believe it was a forthright and courageous statement which was presented with a great deal of integrity. I support his position totally.
The last speaker stated that Canagrex has but $12.6 million as a budget. Having been in the House for some 10 ten years now, I am very well aware of the fact that there are two ways by which that budget could be supplemented indefinitely at any time when it suits the Minister of the day. With approval from Treasury Board, he can get any additional amount of money which may be required and we shall later consider it in Supplementary Estimates. Therefore, the $12.6 million is not a constraining factor at this point in time.
Second, the Hon. Member referred to instruments of legislation which are applied in the United States in situations which require public treatment for the disposition of agricultural products. Yes, they have them but not in the socialistic form in which they now exist in Canagrex. Any suggestion that
they are in such a form there is entirely deceptive as far as the public and Canadian farmers are concerned.
I think it is interesting to note that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has agreed that he will support this Bill. At the same time he has expressed certain reservations about the fashion in which it will be done. He pleads for caution and good judgment in the administration of the Bill after it is passed. In fact, he reflects the position which many farm organizations in the West, particularly in Saskatchewan, have taken in their reserved judgment as to what the real value of this Bill is. I think the Minister of Agriculture would be very well advised at this time to give further consideration to the reservations expressed by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville and a multitude of other farm organizations. If the Minister would reflect on the minutes of the meeting, he would see that the New Brunswick Potato Agency expressed strong opposition to the opportunity which this Bill would extend to the Government. It did not want the joint venture aspect of this Bill. It does in fact support the principles which this Bill suggests but it does not support the vehicles which we are legislating to make the Bill active. For instance, I have been pressing since my earliest Agriculture Committee meeting in this House for an international capability for the extension of our trade in agricultural products abroad. I strongly disagree with the vehicle which the Minister is going to use. In discussing this particular facet of the Bill I will explain my objections. I pleaded for more agricultural representation in the consulates of the world to represent Canadian trade. In 1972, in the earliest Agriculture Committee which I attended, I was advised that Canada has one fulltime agricultural representative in our consulates abroad. We had just one.
I will acknowledge that there has been a further extension of that service and that we do now have some five official representatives in our embassies abroad. As well, we have some seconded people and some part-time people representing agricultural trade abroad. But we are still not universally represented for trade in this agricultural world which demands food.
I do in fact support the principle that we put greater emphasis on the international trade aspect and the extension of that capability world-wide. I do not support the concept that we put two bureaucracies in place which will find themselves in conflict, one from Agriculture and one from Industry, Trade and Commerce, or whatever Department now looks after that in this confused state of portfolio responsibilities.
I do support the principle of export credits and the principle of export insurance, but I do not support the concept that this should be extended to a Crown corporation. I think rather that it should be extended to traders in food in Canada who are recognized in the rest of the world. I do not suggest that it should go through a Crown corporation.
I do suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we need these three things. I repeat, we need export credit, export insurance and
June 13, 1983

agricultural expertise in our consulate representation abroad. We do need a capability to facilitate, to expedite and to finalize certain trade opportunities, but not a Crown corporation of the magnitude that is being put in place. I do suggest that we need influence for orderly markets, but I do not suggest that we legislate upon farmers of this land the criteria by which they may be able to produce and trade, which is what this Bill will do.
The Minister has tried to hide behind the fact that he really will not be doing much buying and selling, that he will not be getting any land, that he will not be producing anything, yet he insists on a joint venture. This is an indirect vehicle for the acquisition of land and the production of crops. That is the mildest way in which we can describe it. This Corporation will also allow the extension of this capability into the processing, marketing, buying and selling. The whole field of agriculture is engulfed. The Minister has been extending unto himself the capability of participation in agriculture from the sod to the starving millions of this world in every aspect of agricultural production, management, processing and sales. I do not like that aspect of this Bill.
1 want to draw to the Speaker's attention and to the attention of this House that virtually every agricultural ministry in every provincial Government in Canada has expressed reservations. While supporting the three principles which I first enunciated, these ministries have asked that he amend and qualify the method of application and eliminate some of the vehicles the Minister proposes to put in place, particularly as it relates to joint ventures and to the Crown corporation.
The Minister has become personal when he referred to the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). I, too, have had conversation with the gentleman to whom the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) referred, and he did, as I do, agree with the principles contained in this Bill. But the Hon. Member objected to the method of application of the principles to the field of agriculture and their invasion of the privacy of the farmer, the marketing board and the market in general. This we cannot tolerate, and the misrepresentation and reflection upon a Member of this House is something which we hope to see no more.


Eugene Whelan: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
The Hon. Member is imputing motives in saying that 1 said something that would degrade anyone at all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Eugene Whelan: Just a minute, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister is entering into an argument with regard to what was said or not said. I believe we have an agreement with regard to time. There will be a period for an exchange of questions at the end, and 1 suggest the Minister reserve his comments until then. The Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain).


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, in closing I simply want to say, as I leave the next ten minutes to the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), yes, help finance, help
Canagrex
insure, help market but do not enter farming through joint ventures. Do not put in place a Crown corporation. Do not get into buy and sell activities. It is the vehicle to which the farmers have objected, not the principle.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) for the House order so that more Members can participate in this debate under this closure motion until the bells start to ring at 5.45 p.m. Admittedly, a 20-minute loaf is better than a ten-minute loaf, but usually I like the full loaf. Usually I do not have notes and take my full time. This is a ten-minute rule which I do not want to abuse. I want to say though that it is a very innovative procedure that should be adopted more often. It allows more Members to speak when this type of restrained debate is in place. I thank the Minister very much for this order and those Members who co-operated.
I want to say very briefly, and without trying to cause any problem in the House in the ten minutes I have allotted to me, that the Government, in my humble opinion, has been erroneous in its defence of Canagrex on three major points. First, the Government has suggested that the agriculture industry needs a Crown corporation as extensive as Canagrex and that it ought to play that great a role in the industry.
Second, the Government has assured the House and the public that under the provisions of Bill C-85 Canagrex will be sufficiently accountable to Parliament and that it will not become another expensive drain on the public purse.
Third, the Government has claimed that the majority of the agriculture industry in Canada is in favour of Canagrex as it is now proposed. I am not talking about principles but all the details that are in the Bill, many of which my friend from Carleton-Charlotte has touched upon.
I suggest to you that these three areas, these assertions of the Government, are highly suspect. They are in reality traverses of the truth, figments of fabrication and really do dishonour to honesty. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the agriculture industry is not in need of a brand new corporation with such extensive potential for intervention.
Virtually all Parties in the House recognize the fine track record of private export and marketing endeavours to date. They also recognize the potential for even further improvement of marketing and export management. Thus there is room for a government body, no doubt about that, to come in and play an important role, and we, the Opposition, have endorsed those portions of the Bill that "promote and facilitate" powers in the Canagrex Bill. We have supported ideas of credits and insurance, but we refuse to endorse the provisions of the Bill which would allow Canagrex to engage in the buying and selling of agricultural products.
Much has been said on the topic of these powers. The issue came up in committee, and indeed the Government has accepted amendments that would restrict these powers in part,

June 13, 1983
Canagrex
but are they restrictive enough? The restrictions do not alleviate the concern that Canagrex may end up participating in the agricultural market not only as a facilitator for private deals, as the Government suggests will be the case, but also as a direct participant itself. We, the Opposition, are not satisfied that such concern is sufficiently alleviated. The powers are there and they can be used. If they can be used, in our humble opinion they can be abused.
Subsection 4(1 )(d) as reported from committee allowed Canagrex to "enter into contracts with foreign governments to provide agricultural products", and to "enter into subcontracts with Canadian enterprises or individuals ... for the provision to foreign governments of any of the products and services that Canagrex has itself contracted to provide".
Deciphered somewhat, this subsection allows Canagrex to engage in extensive buying and selling of agricultural products. Perhaps this is a far-out example but let me put it in far-out terms so that we understand what we are doing. If Canagrex contracted to sell five mangoes to the Government of Upper Volta-my voice is somewhat hoarse today; I need a mango to clear it in view of the activities of the last few days-it would then have the power to make good that contract by buying those mangoes from Canadian producers. This may sound relatively harmless. But what if the Government were to contract to sell Upper Volta not five but five million mangoes and chose to purchase them exclusively from the mango producers of one Province or region? I am using mangoes as my example so that I will not have to worry about casting aspersions on any part of the productivity of the country, because I do not think we produce a heck of a lot. The potential implications of Government participation in buying and selling become more clear. Alternatively, what if Canagrex were to decide to seek bids from Canadian producers to supply the mangoes? The result would be increased domestic competition among Canadian producers that would drive prices down. Canagrex could also wind up taking profits which would otherwise end up in the hands of producers.
Perhaps the Government will tell us that Canagrex is not designed to do any of this, that it is not within the spirit of Bill C-85. This is what the Government has more or less said. We all know, if the power is there under the letter of the law in the Bill, that potentially it can be done.
In looking at legislation, legislators have to look at any new Bill to see what its potential may be, not just at the best wishes of the Minister no matter how sincere, assuming the best wishes and sincerity of this Minister. We have to look at the letter of the law in the Bill to see what is its potential, and we say that the potential is there.
In the case of Canagrex, the Government tells us that the corporation will use its buy and sell powers only in very narrowly defined ways. However, the Bill as it now stands would enable a Crown corporation to play a significant trading role in the agricultural markets of Canada. We know too well how governments like to expand and increase their powers. For example, let us look at Petro-Canada which was supposed to
be a window on the industry, a minor observer in the petroleum world. Now it has become a major participant in the petroleum industry itself. We have seen other examples of extensive government intervention in all sorts of industries, and that is our fear here.
We are very much against the buy and sell provisions. The proposed power to enter into joint ventures is not as harmless as the Government would lead us to believe. Again the problems of patronage and favouritism could arise. The potential is there. Any businessman knows that a government agency is a powerful competitor. The absence of strict profit-loss motives and the access to public funds give government corporations a decided advantage over other firms in an industry. Therefore, by picking and choosing its partners in joint ventures, Canagrex could promote the welfare of certain produces while hurting others.
In short, the restrictions placed upon the powers of Canagrex to buy and sell agricultural products are not sufficient. The simple fact is that the Government could still become a trading partner in the agricultural export business and an active producer and processor in the domestic industry. We cannot allow the Government to extend another long and harmful tentacle into the private sector which, ironically, is a sector that is basically productive. There are problems but it is alive and well without Canagrex. With Canagrex our fear is that even with the best of intentions it could become the chloroform of the industry rather than the catalyst for growth which is so necessary.
There is a temptation for Ministers here in Ottawa at the head of large Departments to think that they know best. We are very much against that concept. We believe that the industry itself should be the judge. In representations before the committee there was agreement in principle on the need to facilitate and promote but a real question about the buy and sell provisions.
Let me draw a comparison with another industry that has not really been debated in the House. I know my time is almost up but I would like to look at the fishing industry. We all know about the Kirby Report. The fishing industry recently confronted the question of whether there should be significant government participation or intervention. The Kirby task force recently examined this question. The federal Government pushed for the creation of a Crown corporation, presumably one similar to Canagrex. However, the majority of participants in the fishing industry opposed such extensive government participation. They realized that they were better off keeping the Government out of their business operations wherever possible.
In its final report, the task force recommended the creation of an Atlantic Fisheries Marketing Commission to promote and co-ordinate market development with "minimum government involvement". This was a sound recommendation. It would have enabled the Government to facilitate marketing and exporting without being an active trader in the market. We, the Opposition, could accept a comparable role for
June 13, 1983

Canagrex. But Government members want a greater role in the agricultural industry, a greater role, ironically, than was created in the fishing industry. As a result, they have reserved judgment on the task force recommendation for a commission in the fishing industry. Indications are that they are unsatisfied with the amount of government control such a commission would provide and would only accept the commission if they saw it as a starting point from which they could eventually establish a full-fledged Crown corporation to meddle in the fishing industry. So far the fishing industry has resisted excessive government intervention in its sales management, and we must help the agricultural industry do the same. We can do that if we do not support the present Bill.
In my remaining two minutes there are two other matters upon which I would like to touch. They have been dealt with generally, as we have dealt with most of these issues, but I appreciate the chance to speak as I have not spoken on any stages of Bill C-85. There are other Hon. Members who were more involved in committee stage. I appreciate and respect that, but I also appreciate the chance to ventilate a few views today. There are two other flaws, in my humble opinion, in the Government's defence of Bill C-85. First, Hon. Members opposite assure us that Canagrex would be sufficiently accountable to Parliament and would not become yet another drain on the public purse. We are very apprehensive about that, regardless of the low initial budget and the best of intentions. I accept the best of intentions, but we only have to look at Canadair and some other Crown corporations to see that with low initial payments moneys have got out of control.
Second, the Government assures us that agricultural industry is largely in favour of Canagrex as it exists in Bill C-85. We do not accept that. Of the 32 groups that appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture to present their views on Canagrex, 20 were either opposed completely to the corporation or had reservations. These are some of the matters that I would like to discuss and that I find very unfortunate, but being in a very temperate spirit today, I will not even start talking about the club of closure which cuts me off at this time.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have only a couple of questions for the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan). He must be aware that the Government did not suggest Canagrex. Farm organizations suggested it. Also the Hon. Member referred to the fishing industry. Surely he is aware of the very successful Saltfish Corporation which has been in operation for several years. It is an ideal situation, as the Hon. Member will see if he wants to look at it and see how well it works. Is the Hon Member aware of the Saltfish Corporation?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, to answer both questions, I am most aware of the Saltfish Corporation. I was here when the matter was debated.


Eugene Whelan: So was I.
Canagrex


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Kirby looked at the total fishing industry. The recommendations are there. The fact of the matter is that we have an interesting paradox between what the Government is doing with Canagrex by creating a Crown corporation and the fishing industry. I am not talking about all the things which have been created. I am not making the case that there should not be Crown corporations in many areas. As the Minister stated in the debate, many Crown corporations are providing a good and fundamental service and are fulfilling a need which could not be fulfilled by the private sector.
In terms of agriculture, which is the most independent incentive-oriented individual industry in the country, our position is that we do not need the heavy hand of corporations to such an extent, which comes to the first question. Yes, I am aware, as the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) said earlier today in answer to a question from the Minister, that there was a concern and a need to have some type of assistance in export credits and export insurance and to facilitate marketing but, as the Minister well knows, no one from this side suggested we have the buy-and-sell or the joint venture.


Eva Lachance Côté: Mr. Speaker, today we are continuing the debate on Bill C-58, to establish the Canagrex corporation. 1 would like to start by quoting Mr. William Jenkins, former dean of the Agricultural College of Nova Scotia, who said in an interview in 1981, and I quote:
In the Atlantic Provinces, exporting agricultural products is like a battle. It is every man for himself, a very primitive way of selling anything ... It is an almost chaotic state of affairs.
Canadian agriculture cannot afford this kind of situation, and that is why today, Mr. Speaker, we are considering the third reading stage of legislation to create a Crown corporation to be called Canagrex, and the purpose of this legislation is to provide for an effective mechanism that will help Canada find its true place on the international market for agri-food products. The corporation will be structured very carefully to provide for joint action by both public and private agents in the industry. It is not an attempt to take over the industry, as some Hon. Members have suggested or claimed. Canagrex will be a mechanism used by the industry in situations which historically have been obstacles to progress. It will provide financial, promotional and technical assistance and will also be used to facilitate identification of markets. Canagrex will be in a position to create markets, not to obstruct their development. Canagrex will therefore help Canada to provide, for the first time, a co-ordinated approach to its export markets. It will seek out new opportunities both for exporters that have been traditionally involved in the business and for newcomers to this field. In other words, Canagrex will make it possible for Canada to increase its profits on international export markets and to increase job opportunities within this country.

June 13, 1983
Canagrex
1 cannot believe that the Official Opposition could be against this concept. One of the most attractive aspects of this legislation is the fact that thanks to the new corporation, new exporters will be helped to get started in the business, and this will increase the variety of Canadian agri-food products available on export markets. Finally, Canagrex will be taking a very active interest in new exporters without harming those already in the business. It is clear that Canagrex will be acting only as a co-ordinating body when it meets requests for assistance from those engaged in the export business or those who intend to enter this field.
Canada's potential in the agri-food export field is unlimited but it has not been developed as well as it could be. We have the resources here in this country for truly taking advantage of our potential in an area which has often been thought of as too hard to "crack". We must know where our real potential lies. From there on, we can set our objectives and concentrate our efforts in order to attain a level of competitiveness that will be hard to beat. That is why I am surprised when I hear people say that the Government is trying to compete with the private sector in the agri-food industry. Nothing could be further from the truth, and to anyone who is still not convinced, I would suggest they read the legislation very carefully and they will realize that this is not the Government's intention. On the contrary, Canagrex will be able to help the farm export industry. We are not trying to take contracts away from the private sector. We want to make it possible for the private sector to grow and continue to play the important part it has played for so many years in the development of our export markets.
I can hardly accept the motion that some people are opposed to the establishment of Canagrex because they fear that the corporation might get involved in the purchase, sale or processing of farm products. The bill limits the use of these powers. Canagrex could be party to a contract only at the request of or in co-operation with a private concern, or if foreign countries showed interest in dealing only on a country-to-country basis. In this connection, please refer to Section 14(5) which states that Canagrex shall not engage in the export of farm products from Canada to other countries except in joint ventures or when acting on behalf of Canada as an agent of the Crown under country-to-country basis agreements.
Moreover, I repeat that most of the 11 members of the Board of directors will come from the private sector. Also, there will be an advisory committee, made up entirely of private sector representatives, which will provide advice and direction with a view to ensuring that Canagrex operates well.
The corporation will function on a three-year plan, which will serve as a basis for its operations and budget. At the end of a five-year trial period, a complete review of its operations will be carried out by the Standing Committee on Agriculture. As the Minister of Agriculture indicated in his remarks, Canagrex will be subjected to a yearly control by the Auditor General, which means that an integrated and complete audit
of all its operations will be carried out, something no other Crown corporation is required to have.
I should like to comment briefly on the importance of agrifood products in the context of our foreign trade. Last year, Canada's farm exports totalled $9.6 billion and its market surplus amounted to some $3.1 billion. Nearly 60 per cent of these products were made up of grain and oil seeds. Yet, if we compare the rest of our exports with our total exports, we find a non-grain deficit of some $2 billion. Canada has the resource potential to do much better than that and requires an agency similar to the Canadian Wheat Board to promote the sale of its non-grain products for export.
To increase our agri-food production, we need to develop new markets, and Canagrex could and should play an important role in this regard. We need this co-ordinating entity to ensure the development of our agri-food industry. Canagrex has no intention whatsoever of monopolizing any farm export. It can only use its powers in conjunction with the private sector to promote the export of agricultural products.
I cannot understand how behind the establishment of Canagrex some people can imagine a huge conspiracy to take over or harm the private sector. It is but a myth spread by a minority both inside and outside the private sector and I should like to take this opportunity to urge private enterprise to try to understand the predicament some very specialized producers find themselves in, since they get no assistance and lack the necessary mechanism to export their goods to foreign countries, for the benefit of Canada as a whole.
I would like to quote once again the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which many have already mentioned. I simply want to remind the Members that last November, during a meeting when it submitted a brief to us, the Federation said that Canada needed an export or agri-food products export assistance agency such as Canagrex that the government wants to create. The Federation also said that this legislation was aimed at producers. All producers are entitled to play a role in the agricultural export trade. By denying them this opportunity, we would be going against democratic principles.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the interventions made by Government Members on this side of the House and Members opposite. I have a great deal of respect for the opinions which have been expressed, but it seems to me that, especially in the agri-food sector, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission have only played a very positive and creative role for Canada. Since their establishment, these two Canadian Government institutions have been the major innovators in agri-food production. They have been at the source of agricultural development in Canada. It saddens me that the opposition can imagine or fear that Canagrex could act against both farm producers themselves
June 13, 1983

and private companies which are already very successful in this field. I also want to say that the private sector greatly benefits from the international contacts which have been made and will continue to be made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). In this regard, I shall simply mention his visit to China and Mexico, where new markets were opened for all Canadian farm producers and the private sector, used them very successfully, for which I congratulate it.
In the future, if the Government as such or the Minister of Agriculture acting as an intermediary or Canagrex in its capacity as export development agent can enable the private sector and each farm producer in Canada to be better off, it will be to the advantage of everyone of us.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding, I would like, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, to thank the Members of the Committee on the three sides of the table, if I may put it in these terms. During four months, we discussed this bill with a lot of interest and sometimes with passion, because each of us was very much concerned about what we wanted to see included in this legislation in order to meet as much as possible the needs and interests of agriculture producers. I would also like to thank all the witnesses who expressed their views to the committee. I would like to extend special thanks to the critic from the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), who was most helpful since this was my first experience in hearing witnesses on such an important bill. And I thank the representatives of the Official Opposition and of the New Democratic Party who were most effective and who led the discussion in a very positive and constructive way.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express the hope that this day, June 13, will not be remembered by Canadians only as a sad day, because we have lost a Member of the Senate who has been a Member of this House and who was my neighbour for many years, namely Senator Maurice Lamon-tagne. Rimouski is only 20 miles away from Mont-Joli, and many Members of his family still live in the Lower St. Lawrence area, particularly in Rimouski. I would like this day to be also remembered as an auspicious day by agricultural producers in Canada. I trust that both the legislation and the regulations which will go along with it will make sure the Canagrex Corporation will be helpful to the agricultural community and will contribute to the wealth of Canada in our international trade.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, today is the third reading of Bill C-85, and a vote will be forced at 5.45 to terminate debate. Today may or may not turn out to be a good day for agriculture depending on how Canagrex performs. I do not undertsand why the Government is so reluctant to listen to the legitimate concerns that we in the Opposition are expressing on behalf of constituents who send us here to represent their views.
Canagrex
I would like to make two points, Mr. Speaker, in the ten minutes that I have in which to talk about Bill C-85, Canagrex. I would first like to touch on what the Government has been doing to help agriculture. It seems to me to be a sad commentary on the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) when he holds Canagrex out as being something that will help the industry when the industry is in considerable trouble and there are many other things that the Government could be doing to help agriculture. New legislation for the the Farm Credit Corporation was passed that included provisions for the agri-bond concept. We have seen nothing of that. In fact, I now hear that the Farm Credit Corporation is becoming very short of funds. A year ago in June of 1982, I heard the Minister say on an open line program in Winnipeg that the Farm Credit Corporation would very shortly have a large sum of money at preferred interest rates because of the Bill that had already been passed. We have not seen any of that.
As well, the Minister has done nothing for stabilization of the red meat industry. The first time that I ever visited Ottawa, this very beautiful capital of Canada, was in 1977 as a representative of the beef industry in Manitoba. At that time, I had the pleasure and privilege of appearing before a Senate committee that was looking into the beef industry. One of the recommendations that came out of that inquiry was that there be a stabilization program. For several years now, the industry has recommended that there be a stabilization program funded by the two levels of Government as well as the producers. The Minister has done nothing about that to assist the industry.
At the Liberal Party meeting which I believe was held in July, 1980, a resolution was passed to the effect that the Government should do something about capital gains. Again, the Government has done nothing about that. The reason I am making these points, Mr. Speaker, is to show that if the Government really wants to assist Canadian farmers and producers to export, it should be doing everything it can to make them competitive at home and to keep their cost down. After all, if we can produce a quality product with a competitive price, we will sell goods abroad. We will not be competitive on the international market if we cannot handle our costs and see that we produce effectively and efficiently at home.
One of the areas that we do have an advantage in is the area of energy. Yet look at what the Government has done to energy. It takes a great, big mark-up on every gallon of gasoline that goes into a farm tractor. That is one of the things that we on this side of the House have talked about for a long time. We want to cut down on the amount of tax taken by the federal Government when farmers burn fuel for the production of food. Yet no action has been taken on that.
It seems to me that if the Minister were really interested in doing something on behalf of the Canadian producer and farmer, he would be interested in talking to the farmer and working with the Provinces. We know that many of the Provinces are not in favour of the provisions of this Bill, particularly the buy and sell provisions of this Bill. We all agree with the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
June 13, 1983
Canagrex
Nystrom) who said that we need to support Canadian agriculture. There is absolutely no question about that.
We have a right to expect support back from the Government, and when I say we, 1 speak as a farmer. Look at the amount of taxation the Government takes from each farmer or from each acre of land that is farmed each year. It is an astronomical amount of money. To expect that the Government should put some of that money back is not expecting a lot.
I do not have time to go through the powers in Clause 14 of the Bill, but I am sure that every power conceivable was put into that Clause to make sure that the Government, through Canagrex, had as much access to power to purchase as possible. That concerns us. It is the same old story. When a farmer sees someone driving into his yard and that person says, "I am a Government man and I am here to help you", the farmer immediately becomes a little bit suspicious. We all know that farmers work very hard and that they are held accountable to their bankers. They have commitments to meet each year. When it is a Government operation, it is a little different. When somebody else's money is at risk, one does not get quite as involved. It is the same old story. Unless one risks one's own life or money, it is very easy to go through the whole process without becoming directly involved.
That is what concerns us about the buy and sell provision in the Bill. The Minister is kidding himself if he thinks those powers will not be used. If he is putting the powers in there and saying not to worry because they will not be used, that is fine, but if he is sincere, he should be prepared to take the powers away if they are not going to be used.
We can talk about what went on with PetroCan, for instance. It was supposed to be a small operation with a window on the industry to check things out. Now it is exploring for oil using Government dollars and it is checking oil and cleaning windshields. That is not what I understood to be the concept for PetroCan.
The Minister says we have to see what we can do about a $2 billion trade deficit in agricultural products in the country. I agree. We buy a tremendous amount of fruits and vegetables out of season because we cannot grow pineapples and oranges here. Canagrex is not going to achieve a lot in those areas.
I do not think the Minister is listening, Mr. Speaker. He likes to talk a lot but he does not listen very well. We can make sure that Canadian farmers are competitive. The Minister says that with Canagrex it will not be a case of the Government competing against farmers. That may be true, but what concerns me is that there are other programs in place and we do not want to see the Government competing against itself.
I have here the outline of a program in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce called the Program for Export Market Development for Food. The application form is quite extensive and applies to many areas that Canagrex will serve. How do we know that when Canagrex becomes operational there will not be a Canagrex Crown corporation competing with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for a
share of export markets. With Government competing against Government and the first job of the bureaucracy being to grow, we know that our tax dollars are being used unwisely.
We have a legitimate concern about the proliferation of Crown corporations and the fact that they are not accountable. There may be all kinds of auditing after the fact but in many cases it is too late. We want to make sure that there is accountability up front. It seems to me that encouraging the private sector is the only way to get accountability up front.
The Minister is trying to ram the Bill through, and that is dividing the agricultural constituency, Mr. Speaker. Regardless of whether or not he believes it, we have very real concerns about the fact that the Government is becoming involved in joint ventures and in the actual production of food. Whether or not the Minister wants to admit it, that is the perception of the Bill.
I plead with the Government to remove the buy and sell provision and pass those parts of the Bill that everyone favours. That would be doing a service to agriculture and would enable us to show faith in the Government. It is not too late. I think everyone on this side of the House would agree with taking the buy and sell provision out of the Bill and leaving the good parts in there.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a brief moment to thank my colleagues for filling in and speaking on my behalf on my amendment to the Canagrex Bill, last week. I am glad to see that the Minister of Agriculture is in the House. I must say that I am very disappointed that Motion No. 2 standing in my name has been considered inappropriate and has been disallowed. I am genuinely concerned about that.
My remarks will deal almost exclusively with the implications that flow from this Bill for the beef cattle industry in Canada. I have spent a lifetime in that industry and have concerns that I want to put on the record.
I was disappointed that there was no proper debate on my motion. I understand it was disallowed on a rather trivial technicality. The motion was made in response to what I would describe as almost total support in the beef cattle industry. This was expressed very forcibly in the standing committee by a significant number of associations. The motion would have removed beef cattle and beef products from the legislation entirely. It was as simple and straightforward as that. It seemed it was disallowed because it was included in the interpretation section with two other exclusions already there, namely, fish and forestry products. That seemed the natural place to put it. I have since wondered if it would have suffered the same fate had it been included with two other exclusions in the Bill, dairy products and grain products, in Clause 14(2)(c)(i)(ii) in Bill C-85. I think it is fair to suggest that.
My main argument must be based on what I think is a very clear precedent that I found in the debate on Bill C-176 that took place 12 or 13 years ago. The Minister must have been here then; I was not but I was involved in the public debate at
June 13, 1983

that time in western Canada. That was the marketing board debate which went on for over two years, 1971 and 1972. At that time a similar amendment was proposed, debated and voted upon. The intent of that amendment was to exclude cattle and calves from the provisions of the Bill. A debate went on for many hours and included at least one all-night session. The important precedent is that this similar amendment was properly debated and the debate is recorded in Hansard.
My motion to amend Bill C-85 should have enjoyed the same right of debate in this House. After all, Acting Speaker Corbin ruled on July 29, 1982, as recorded at page 19829 of Hansard, that 1 might be able to present certain arguments in support of the acceptability of my motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has a certain difficulty at this point. The amendment was proposed by the Hon. Member and it was carefully considered by the Chair. The reasons for rejection of the amendment were offered. While I understand how the Hon. Member feels, he cannot reflect on that decision of the Chair.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In any event, 1 always felt that I personally, although perhaps informally, represented the total Canadian beef cattle industry in these matters and many others as well. I remind the House that almost all the organized beef cattle associations in Canada are vigorously opposed to Canagrex, especially to Article 14 of that piece of legislation, the powers to buy and sell. I make this statement on behalf of the following cattle organizations, all of which supported my amendment and so stated when they appeared before the committee meeting on Bill C-85. They are the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Alberta Cattle Commission, the Western Stock Growers Association, the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association, and a number of other agricultural groups. Before leaving my references to the debate on Bill C-176, the marketing board legislation, I suggest that we could take another look at that debate, which took place many years ago, and consider the possibility of using the referendum or plebiscite approach which finally emerged out of that prolonged debate, which was also very emotional. It provided a way of resolving the difficulties in that earlier legislation. At least in western Canada agricultural producers were required to pass a majority referendum in each Province before such a proposal could be proceeded with. That was a preliminary step before a national board could be proceeded with. That pretty well resolved the difficulties. With only one or two exceptions, no marketing boards have been able to live with that criterion and successfully promote a national marketing board, certainly not in the cattle industry in Canada.
I would like to make a comment about the Canada All Breeds Association. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has made several references to this. This is a group of enterprising private enterprisers who are centered in Calgary. The managing director is Mr. Tony Saretsky. The Minister
Canagrex
knows this gentleman. The Minister has made several comments about this group and I am curious as to what his purpose is because here is a group which had a very tough time getting its organization operating, in the export of livestock particularly. It is finally now operating very successfully. Of course it has the power to buy and sell because it is a private enterprise outfit. It does operate with powers to buy and sell and it must have them.
This group appeared before our Standing Committee, and was totally opposed to Canagrex as we are now debating it. It seems to me that the Minister tends to forget this. This group was not out there promoting Canagrex. It was totally opposed to it. I believe the remarks of the Minister suggest that there is something wrong with the private sector having the powers to buy and sell. However, by the same token, he is arguing that because it does, his Canagrex legislation should indeed be entitled to the same powers. All I can say is, no way. This is not an argument which can be used to support the Government in requiring buy and sell powers. That is where private enterprise should be involved.
I would like to report briefly on the situation in our own Province of Alberta. This information was given to me very recently. It is from the office of our Minister of Agriculture in Alberta. The Alberta provincial Government is adamantly opposed to Canagrex because of the bad experiences it has had with its own Alberta export agency, and it has such an agency. It has had many cases ending up in court over this legislation and Alberta feels that the Government should not be allowed to be involved in marketing, referring to its own provincial Government, of course. This provincial legislation was in place for about four years during which there were nothing but problems. The same Alberta legislation, if it still exists at all, has not been used for over the last six years. This must surely be a clear indication that Alberta will very likely remove that legislation from its own books.
I would also like to make a comment about the remarks which have occasionally come from the Minister and others suggesting that, because the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is supportive of this Bill, some way or other it speaks for all other sectors of Canadian agriculture. I suggest very vigorously, Mr Speaker, that this is not necessarily so. The CFA does not, and never has, spoken officially for Canada's organized beef cattle producers. The Canadian cattlemen's associations, the Alberta Cattle Commission, the Western Stock Growers Association and the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association, have never been members or affiliated with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The Minister should not leave the impression that the CFA is officially speaking for organized cattlemen in Canada. I object very strenuously to that impression.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has some difficulty at this point. Would there be unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed.
26304

June 13, 1983
Canagrex


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to read a telegram which I received just the other day from the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association. It is addressed to me. It reads:
During the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association 70th annual convention held June 5th, 6th and 7th, the S.S.G.A. membership passed the resolution unanimously requesting that the federal Government withdraw cattle and cattle products from Canagrex. Again we state that Canagrex is redundant and duplicative of established programs. The private sector in conjunction with Industry, Trade and Commerce, has an excellent export performance and will not be improved by the intrusion of a new public agency. We wish to remind the Government that an overwhelming majority of western farm organizations oppose Canagrex. If there is a need for support to implement this legislation in certain sectors, the S.S.G.A. and all livestock groups wish to have their products excluded.
It then lists the various organizations, mostly in Saskatchewan but some in Manitoba, in that same telegram.
I would like to suggest that the Minister's laboured and selfconscious defence of the Government's use of closure, or time allocation, whatever you call it, is rather unimpressive. It does not matter what it is called, whether time allocation or closure, it is a spurious argument by the Minister that in no way changes the fact that the Minister, through his Bill, reduced the Canagrex debate to only two days for report stage and third reading. This same Minister was the hatchet man in the Crow debate at second reading to limit that debate to only one more day. These two pieces of legislation have upset, angered and totally frustrated all of western Canadian agriculture to an extent we have not seen since that marketing board legislation of about 13 years ago.
Canagrex is a nothing Bill which should never have come before Parliament in this form. There are presently under way in western Canada, especially in Alberta, public protest meetings going on regularly, and we have not seen this situation before, where they are protesting in the middle of their farming season to a very serious degree. I would like to close by saying that I will not be supporting this piece of legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions and comments? Debate.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this third reading debate on Bill C-85. Right at the start I want to place on the record that on second reading this Bill was debated for five days. It was considered in committee, witnesses were heard and amendments were discussed, for a total of 28 days, or 56 hours and 45 minutes. There were two days of debate at report stage, and now we come to the time when we will be voting on third reading and bringing this debate to a conclusion.
1 am one of those Canadian farmers who is not at all satisfied with our export market development over the years I have been farming. I was very upset that we have been expected to produce a product with no assurances as to price or quantity required for the export or domestic markets. By contrast, when I look at a June 9 article in The Globe and Mail I see that
China has ordered wheat from the Canadian Board valued at over $400 million. The article says:
The sale is part of a long term agreement with China that calls for the sale of between 3.5 million tons and 4.2 million tons annually for three years beginning in August, 1982.
What we have in the Canagrex legislation is something which will allow other sectors of the farm economy the opportunity to make long-term arrangements with the purchasing country, thereby assuring them continuity of supply of a quality product. I would like to quote from a letter of Mr. Gordon Hill, the Former Chairman of the Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board to the Editor of The London Free Press. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that in 1950 and 1951 I was a committee man on that marketing board. Mr. Hill says:
The Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board was established in 1944. In 1967, by a vote of bean producers, agency marketing came into existence. The Marketing Board has grown in an orderly fashion since its inception and the dealer facilities have also expanded. This growth has resulted in a steady expansion of export business to the point that we currently average about 80 per cent of our $50 million worth of primary sales going into the export market. The beans are currently going to 28 countries around the world with an additional 25 countries participating in food aid.
He goes on to say:
The Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board feels that with the implementation of Canagrex, additional opportunities for trade will evolve from state-to-state trading, and the identification of new markets.
Canada is recognized, around the world, as a trading nation. Canagrex through its mandate can further develop this position.
Canagrex will be a winner for Canadian agriculture because its formation is a result of requests from grass root agriculturalists-the farmers.
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that this Bill does have the support of farmers in eastern Canada, contrary to what others have said here today. The President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture stressed that "the powers which would be granted to Canagrex are not extraordinary. Rather than imposing a threat to free enterprise, it would be most beneficial to smaller agricultural producer groups which normally would not be able to crack the export market". He said Canagrex is absolutely essential if we are to fill the gaping void between our potential to produce and manufacture agricultural products for export and our present performance.
Just last week, Mr. Speaker, I had inquiries from two small processing companies requesting assistance in filling export contracts. Together with them I contacted the various Government Departments and agencies. The word came back to us that as of that date there were no programs available for these two small companies, but the departmental people told me that if Canagrex were in place, that body could facilitate their needs.
There are a lot of areas I would like to touch on in this debate, but there seems to be a perception that Canagrex is going to get involved in primary food production. That is not the case. One of the amendments to Clause 14 in committee was that if Canagrex aquires property for lease or otherwise, it does not include the power to purchase, lease or otherwise acquire real property for the production of fruit, forage, grain,
June 13, 1983

vegetable or other crops, and so on. Canagrex cannot get involved in actual production for domestic or export, unless it is in coordination with or at the request of other groups who wish the assistance of Canagrex, it cannot get involved in production except for new market development.
The make-up of the board of directors of Canagrex is clearly spelled out in the legislation. Seven of those directors have to come from outside the civil service. But there will be one from each of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Finance from within the Civil Service. I would hope we would have some expertise from the red meat sector. The Canadian Pork Council supports Canagrex, and I would expect they would want to be involved because they are very aggressively going after export markets. I would also hope there will be one from the poultry sector because they are very forward looking as far as export markets are concerned. Perhaps Canagrex will be the missing link we have been looking for to enable us to plan our poultry and livestock production and know that we have continuity of supply for the countries which wish to import the food. Certainly I would hope the horticultural sector would have someone involved in this agency as well. Naturally, we need some business and trading expertise too. I would hope we would have a blend of expertise, people who will work together on the production of food so amply produced here in Canada to supply world markets. 1 believe there is tremendous opportunity here for Canadians.
I see the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) has just come into the House. 1 have had inquiries from the Tobacco Marketing Board about the progress of the Canagrex legislation and the need for it in that particular industry. I have tobacco producers in my own riding who are vitally concerned about the fact that more and more countries want to deal on a state-to-state basis. They envisage new markets opening up because Canada has the highest quality tobacco of any country in the world. It is only human nature for the farmer to want to expand his production to supply those markets.
The legislation before us today, Mr. Speaker, was started quite a few years ago, first of all through a series of meetings of the major farm organizations in Canada with input from the various sectors. They discussed the concept, the needs, and they saw the shortfall of the organizations already in place. They felt that, with the high cost of production in Canada, we had to have some vehicle to act as a focal point to bring together not only the production sector but the processors, packers and exporters to work together in a meaningful partnership on behalf of the whole Canadian economy. It is very interesting that in some of those early meetings the Canadian Labour Congress was involved. They followed the development of this legislation in the discussion stage. They saw the spin-off effects, what it would do for job creation. They recognized that this is a good piece of legislation and we had to proceed if we were to realize our potential. The Canagrex formula, guided by the philosophy of serving the needs of all the producers to facilitate the agri-food industry, would assist in the diversification of products offered to the foreign buyer.
Canagrex
The potential market possibilities are real. Conditions in the marketplace indicate that with a co-ordinated approach Canadian agri-food exports could stand on a firmer footing and become a more potent competitor. I recently had inquiries from two different countries which wanted to import Canadian dairy cattle, the Canadian Holstein-Friesian. That breed is one of the most efficient producers of dairy products in the world. There are two countries that want to import that cattle, but they will need the help of Canagrex to fulfil that mandate.
One can see the fragmented approach which is taken by the various Provinces. I understand that the Province of Quebec presently provides a subsidy of $250 for each animal going into the export field. How do other Provinces compete against that? Consequently, we need a co-ordinating body such as Canagrex to fulfil that need to ensure that the product is available for those markets and the back-up services are provided so that the animals are put on the correct rations and kept in the proper environment to produce to their capacity.
I think it is only fair to look at Canagrex in the context of the missing link between our marketing board structures which are already in place in Canada. That structure did not recognize the potential which we had in Canada. The marketing boards themselves should be a body which is expansionary in concept in terms of striving to fill those markets whether they are in Canada or outside. Canagrex can be the mechanism to utilize that potential.
The former chairman of the White Bean Growers Marketing Board wrote a letter to the editor in which he recognized the need for the various other marketing boards which we have. I hope Canagrex will be able to work very closely with these organizations and provide the bridge financing required when necessary, which may include terms for payment six months down the road.
Possible market potential as identified by Agriculture Canada and other federal Government agencies relates directly to the need for Canada to begin to be more dynamic in export marketing. This is not a condemnation of what has traditionally taken place in the agri-food sector but rather a recognition of the ever changing world of the export marketplace. It is an ever changing world that shows that there is a quiet and subtle trade war evolving between the United States and the European Common Market. This is happening more often and the competition is becoming stronger. Can those other two countries, without the marketing board structures such as we have in Canada, assure themselves of long-term continuity of supply of a quality product or will they have to rely on programs such as the PIK Program which is in place in the United States? Do we know what these markets will be next fall? Do we know what crops will be in Russia? Do we know what they will be in the United States, let alone Ontario?
Since export markets are traditionally highly volatile, the best way for Canada to achieve additional exports in nongrains is also to create a strong and stable domestic market for

June 13, 1983
Canagrex
those commodities. This will help meet the objective of reducing the trade deficit in certain sectors of the non-grains area as Canagrex will help industry in linking export development and import replacement. I cannot help but reflect on the 1982 statistics which show that the dollar value of wheat sales last year was up by 15 per cent over 1981 while export sales in other sectors of the agricultural industry are up by only 2 per cent. Surely we must have a more efficient system than the one that exists at the present time.
I am reminded of a book entitled "Not for Export" which was written by a Carleton University professor. Ele points out many of the problems with which we are confronted today. These problems date back to the 1800s, to the time of Confederation. He points out the fact that all too often we have subsidiary companies in Canada whose head offices are located elsewhere. Consequently, when an order is placed it is not filled by the Canadian subsidiary but by the parent company in another country. Canagrex can give us a clear Canadian identity and also ensure that we have the mechanisms in place by which the Government can work with producers to fill those markets if requested to do so.
While Canada does have a number of export market tools at present, as a country we have not moved to present to the foreign buyer an agri-food focus for exports. Our efforts are fragmented and this tends to lead to what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture referred to as missed opportunities.
Similarly, potential exports of Canadian agricultural products have suffered because they have not had the means to become involved in world trading. Canagrex can be the catalyst by which doors of opportunity will open through various programs as outlined in the legislation for these potential exporters.
The benefits to the Canadian agri-food industry both in the long and short term will be significant because it will enable Canada to offer a more diversified range of product possibilities to foreign buyers. This can be of benefit to the industry and to the country's over-all balance of trade.
What all this points to is that Canagrex will, over the long run, have an opportunity to develop a trade philosophy which will relate directly to increased foreign trade dollars for Canada and the creation of additional employment. Whether that employment is in the agricultural industry itself or a related industry, there must be a concentrated effort to ensure that we get our share of these foreign markets. These spin-off effects will be felt throughout the Canadian economy.
I urge passage of this important legislation. The markets are out there and Canada can and will be competitive in all areas to ensure that we capture those markets as identified by Agriculture Canada and other Government agencies. I believe that it will take three years before we are able to bring our true trade potential into focus. I hope that Members of the Opposition will work together with the Government to ensure that the farm organizations will have their views taken into consideration. For example, I hope that the red meat sector in Canada will be able to partake in the benefits of this legislation, whether it is only the participation of the Pork Council at the present time or the ability to become competitive in the near
future as far as the marketing of beef in offshore markets is concerned.
When I look at the trade figures in Hong Kong and see one of our major Canadian exporters getting one-third of his trade from another country to fill that market, I would hope that Canagrex would become very actively involved there to fill that market with Canadian products. The spin-off effects would benefit our total economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, comments? Debate.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, if there is anything pleasant to say about this Bill, it is simply to thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) for staying at least once in the House during debate on a piece of legislation related to agriculture. It is nice to have "Green Gene" in the House when we are debating subject matter of this nature.
It is an insult to this Parliament, the people of Canada and the farming community of the country that with a Bill of this magnitude on which there is this diversity of opinion and which has poisoned and marinated the prospective discontent that is divided largely between East and West, the Minister would bring it to the House under the guillotine of closure. This piece of legislation does not strive toward achievement but strives toward power. This represents an attempt by the Government to achieve complete and absolute Government involvement in farm management in the farming communities of this country. That is the kind of extent of Government involvement with which we will end up in Canada where Government will control farm management.
As long as the Government controls the concept of marketing and its process, then in effect the Government controls all management decisions. The farmers, following the passage of this legislation, at least until that Party is on the Government side of the House, will find out that the right of control and decision-making has slid from the farm desk to the bureaucracies of the corporation called Canagrex. With respect to the buy and sell power, the Minister, very wrongly, told us today it is analagous to that which is used by Crown corporations in the Province of Alberta.
If I might, Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a moment to share with you the great illusion under which the Minister of Agriculture buries himself and to the way in which he deceives the people of Canada by simply mentioning those names.
In the Constitution of the Soviet Union we note there is freedom of speech, freedom of association and also people have freedom of travel. The only difference is that a person in the Soviet Union has to get a permit to go from Moscow to Kiev. While the Minister of Agriculture quite rightly says that in the Province of Alberta with its Crown corporations there are provisions for buy-sell, what he said is really like trying to make the analogy of a North American claiming he is free or a citizen of the Soviet Union claiming he is free. Both Constitutions say the words but the facts are not the same.
June 13, 1983

The Minister of Agriculture said today in his speech that the Province of Alberta has buy-sell power. 1 simply say to him that if he thinks those two buy-sell programs are the same, he deceives this House. The fact is that if the Government used the buy-sell provisions as defined by the Province of Alberta, it would find that they are far less offensive than the buy-sell definition in this Bill. Sure the words are the same in the title, but what is the actual legislation? There are four pages of definition in the description marked Canagrex. In the very first paragraph of Clause 14 it reads:
(a) purchase agricultural products and food products and package-
Package. Let me emphasize "and package."
-process, store, ship, insure, import, export or sell or otherwise dispose of products purchased by it;
To package or otherwise sell is the extent to which it will go. We could wind up in the supermarkets of the country and on the Canagrex shelf find Whelan beans. With the label reading "It's ours." We can get rid of all the various kinds of food labels we see on cans and replace them with "Canagrex. It's ours."
The Minister across the way tells us about something or another but his implications are that I am simply fabricating the facts. But we all recall the days in 1972 when the Liberal Minister of Energy was going around the country telling people "Don't fear PetroCan" because it is simply to be, and 1 quote from that period of time, "a window on that industry."
We were told that all the Government wanted was to get into the board rooms to see how the oil industry worked. The Minister of the day said we had no reason at all ever to be associated with the service station end of the industry. That window on the industry, PetroCan, became an employer of 8,000 people and it ended up right in marketing at street level. The point to be made is that once power is granted, power is used. If the Minister thinks I am fallacious in my imagination of the full extension of the use of the power as defined, then the Minister defies history. When you grant power, as I said the power ends up by being used.
I join with many others in opposing this legislation. I am in good hands in saying that I will vote against this Bill later this day. Noting that the last speaker for the Liberal side listed two or three groups saying they are in favour of the Canagrex legislation, let me put on the record the fact that the following are opposed to this legislation:
Alberta Beekeepers Association, Ablerta 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-
And the list goes on. This Minister operates in the milieu of deceit, Mr. Speaker, when he implies to us that there is some kind of blanket acceptance in general for his legislation. He
Canagrex
operates on the fact that by far the majority of Canadians are in favour of his legislation. I know there are people in the Province of Quebec and in the Province of Ontario, even to some extent in the Maritime Provinces, who believe this legislation would be good for them. We in this Party are willing to accept that that marketing agency is of some value. But it is absolutely unacceptable to have that legislation contain Clause 14 with such a full extension of power, with that vast number of associations, which 1 have listed, opposed to it, and for the Minister to come to the House and tell us that there is broad acceptance, when in fact there is not, and for the Minister to do this under the threat of closure. That defies the democratic process by which we come to represent our constituents. I tell you, Sir, this piece of legislation is, for that reason, unacceptable.
The time is all too short in this debate, particularly because of closure. I have an agreement with my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) to share some time. I want to wrap up by saying that this Minister of Agriculture who often gives himself praise, irre-gardless of the fact there is no such word as irregardless, and who keeps et cetering his way through the House, has never before passed a major piece of legislation in all the years he has been Minister of Agriculture. Today we will have his first piece of major legislation in all the years he has been the Minister. This will be done through closure. It has taken him three years. He has stubbornly done it without listening to any amendment. He has stubbornly done it without listening to the majority of the agricultural communities in Canada, and he will obtain this legislation only because he prefers closure to democracy. I tell you, Sir, he is the worst Minister of Agriculture in the history of the country. I will now sit down so that I can share the speaking time with the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster who will take off on this Minister with equal tenacity. I hope he will call for his resignation.


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) for allowing me to take part in this debate. It seems strange that we must now share the 20-minute speaking time allowed each Member because of the rush and the inability of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to convince the majority of Canadians that this Bill called Canagrex is needed. We have closure imposed upon us.


Mr. Cullen:: Time allocation.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Therefore, as Members we must share the time and limit our debate so that this legislation may be imposed against the will of the majority of the farming communities and producers in Canada.
I want to say a few words on the supposed need and the great benefit that will accrue from this Crown corporation to be imposed on the people of Canada. I guess that we should not be concerned. I guess it is the right of the Government to pass bad legislation. It has not stopped the Government in the past. I suppose it will not stop the Government in the next six

June 13, 1983
Canagrex
to ten months on whenever the Government screws up enough courage to call an election. The people of Canada will find a method of removing this bad legislation from the books. That is called a general election, and certainly we on this side of the House look forward to that opportunity.
The need for Canagrex, as expressed by the Minister and by other Government Members, is that it will increase the volume of goods which can be exported from Canada. Let us take a look at some of the things that have happened without this Crown corporation. I will be referring to ten-year averages from 1968 to 1970. For example, the export of buckwheat increased 94 per cent in ten years. Corn went up 12,000 per cent without any help, without any marketing agency imposed upon the growers against their will. Turning to flaxseed, it went up 14 per cent in ten years, and soyabean went up 149 per cent. Now let us talk about the Cinderella crop of western Canada, canola, which was originally rapeseed. It increased 258 per cent without a Government marketing agency or without a Crown corporation to sell it. I think the numbers and the commodities speak for themselves. The exporters of these goods, the people who work along with the producers of these commodities to export them into the world, are doing a very good job.
There is an opportunity for the Government to become involved. The Government has had that opportunity for the past number of years with Government agencies to which it could have given assistance. Let us look at the new crops, the pulse crops which are coming on board in western Canada. They are being marketed by individual enterprisers without a Crown corporation. Canary seed and lentils, pulse crops in my part of Canada, are taking a large amount of acreage and are providing producers with a beneficial return. The only reason they grow these crops is that they make a profit. Exporters are making a profit and are encouraging it. I think they are doing it very well.
During the short time allowed in the House for this debate we continually heard the Canadian Wheat Board being compared with Canagrex. Anyone who knows anything about the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board and its structure compared with Canagrex would be amazed that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Dionne) would have the audacity to compare them. The Canadian Wheat Board is funded by producers. It is operated out of the hip pockets of farmers. Also it has an elected advisory board. Free and democratic elections take place. They advise the Canadian Wheat Board. There are five commissioners appointed by the Government of Canada. No one, not even the strongest critics of the Canadian Wheat Board, could say that any of the five commissioners were painted with a political brush of one stripe or another. The producers of western Canada fund the Canadian Wheat Board out of their sales. They feel they have control over that Board. They do not have a worry about it because it is funded out of their pockets. They provide the operating
money. They are the ones who have input through their elected advisory board.
When we take a look at the review by the Auditor General in the Bill, we realize that it comes three years after it has started. I cannot understand why a review would be allowed only after three years. Why could it not be allowed after the first or the second year? It is far too late.
The Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) presented an amendment which in my opinion was certainly a reasoned and rational one. When we consider that wheat and dairy products are excluded and that by far the vast majority of cattle associations in the country were against their product being included in the Bill to establish Canagrex, why would the Minister not listen to cattlemen as well as he listened to wheat growers and dairy producers? I think this is unbecoming of a Minister of Agriculture who is a democrat and has the best interests of agriculture at heart. There is some difficulty at times recognizing that, but I do not understand why he would not listen to the loud voice of cattle producers and breed associations of Canada. They did not ask for the Bill to be killed or for it to be removed from the Order Paper; they only asked that their product not be included.
When we take a look at the Bill, we find that it is redundant, inappropriate and misdirected. Presently the Government has at its disposal all the means it needs to support export growth in agriculture. With only a few minor enlargements of the mandate of the Export Development Corporation, the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the Foreign Trade Service, they could quite adequately fulfil the financing and marketing needed to support exports. I think that could be done at a much lower cost to Canadian taxpayers.
It is mot inappropriate that through Canagrex the Government could establish itself as a direct trader with the power to buy and sell on international markets. As we have indicated previously, it will bring unfair competition to bear on the existing export structure. The consequences of the unfair competition will have a negative effect on over-all trade performance in the export field. It is misdirected because the basic issue in Canada's export growth has been totally ignored by Canagrex. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) identified the crucial issue, that is our ability to supply internationally competitive prices. The Government proposal for Canagrex does not address that problem.
We have had discussions about international trading organizations in the House. We had a special standing committee of the House of Commons which travelled to gain knowledge as to whether an international trading corporation would be necessary and would be of assistance to the people of Canada. On June 28, 1982, I asked the then Minister of State for International Trade, the Hon. Member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley), why he was even considering supporting Canagrex when he, as Minister responsible, had not seen fit to go ahead with the implementation of an international trading corporation. If the international trading corporation for other products was not acceptable to the Government, why would it
June 13, 1983

find acceptable to impose upon the agricultural community the Bill before us?
During this debate we have heard Hon. Members on the Government side indicate that the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) was responsible for the Bill. Any time the discussion of Canagrex arose, as the Minister of Agriculture and his Parliamentary Secretary should know full well, the Hon. Member for Elgin did not at any time endorse the buy and sell proposal. Under his direction it was to be a Bill to facilitate, assist and encourage, but at no time distract from the individual initiatives of exporters and producers.
After straightening out the record in that regard, I will sit down as my time has expired, but I will certainly rise in my place to vote against Bill C-85.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kinders-ley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) stated that he finds it hard to understand why grains produced under the Canadian Wheat Board and dairy products which are sold under the Canadian Dairy Commission were being pulled out of the Bill. He cited that as an example or a reason why livestock production should be exempted from the Bill as well. Grain producers and dairy producers which have marketing organizations work with them. Therefore, I can understand that exemption.
Can the Hon. Member explain to the House how exempting livestock, something which did not pass in committee by the way, from the powers of the Bill would meet the requirements or expectations of his fellow Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) who in his speech on second reading was hoping that a Canagrex operation would assist some of his constituents to export calves to Israel. That is now possible with the way the Bill has been handled. What would he propose to do for his fellow Member for Provencher if livestock and beef cattle had been exempted from the Bill?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I guess I should not be surprised at the question because it comes from the philosophy shared by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse). Number one, the dairy producers of Canada want a dairy marketing board, they have one and that is what they should have because they want it. Number two, the Canadian wheat producers want a Canadian Wheat Board, they have it and they should have it. Number three, Canadian cattlemen do not want a marketing board. They do not want Canagrex. If we can recognize those facts and those democratic responses of those who produce goods, then we will live in a democracy which continues to function. As to what I would do for my colleague from Provencher, I would explain to his constituents that there is already the Canadian Export Development Corporation and the Canadian Commercial Corporation which could facilitate and assist in financing the export of calves all over the world. We do not need Canagrex in order to export cattle.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Hon. Member. First, is he aware that in the Province of
Canagrex
Saskatchewan the provincial Minister of Agriculture, the Deputy Premier and House Leader for that Province, is using the Crown corporations set up by the previous Government to export cattle to Romania? It has the power to buy and sell. Is the Member also aware that he is not intending to abandon any Crown corporations in Saskatchewan at the present time because they are all making money? Is he aware of that?
Also, is he aware that it is not closure that is being used in the House of Commons? In the books of procedure there is a definition for closure and a definition for time allocation. The most democratic Parliament in the world, the Mother of Parliament in Great Britain, uses time allocation nearly every day that it is in session. Is he aware of that? Why does he continue to try to get across the point that this Minister of Agriculture, who has been elected for 37 years in the most democratic forms of Government that there is, would do anything that would be undemocratic?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would never question the good judgment of the good people of the county which the Hon. Minister comes from, but I am sure that some of them have found 37 years a bit trying on their patience and look forward to an apportunity to change that.
In answer to the Minister's question, yes, I am aware that cattle is exported from Saskatchewan through the Saskatchewan Agricultural Corporation. That is because the people of Saskatchewan want that Crown corporation. The Minister of Agriculture finds that humorous.


Eugene Whelan: I do.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: In Saskatchewan there happens to be a Government that recognizes the value of Crown corporation. If he looks at the restructuring of Crown corporations in Saskatchewan he will find that they have become fiscally responsible. Second, there has been the elimination of some Crown corporations since the return of the Progressive Conservative Government in Saskatchewan. Third, when the Minister refers to closure, anything that limits debate and stops the democratic process short of fulfilment is closure. When closure is administered in committee by the Liberal and NDP Members to stop the Saskatchewan stock growers and Saskatchewan honey producers from appearing before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and presenting their feelings and their case, it does not matter what it says in the Standing Orders, it is closure and a gagging of the democratic process.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Hon. Member. It seems that the main problem the Official Opposition has with Canagrex is the buy and sell power. Is he aware that a commercial corporation has existed since the 1940s and that it has exactly the same powers as Canagrex in commercial areas? With regard to certain agricultural commodities, this corporation has been doing exactly what Canagrex is proposed to do, and has been doing for a great many years with regard to canola, that is, the Canadian Commercial Corporation. It has been doing a very fine job. We had the Estimates before the Finance Committee not more than two

June 13, 1983
Canagrex
weeks ago. Members opposite were present. That corporation was given a glowing round of applause for the work that it has been doing. Indeed, Members asked why it had not moved into the agricultural area and whether it could do the kinds of things that Canagrex is proposed to do. Members of that committee were told that yes, it could, if the Government and the Opposition wanted it to do so, but Canagrex was being designed specifically to deal with agricultural commodities. That is why the Canadian Commercial Corporation is not moving into that area.
We have had a corporation like this for a great many years with the buy and sell power and with the power to deal state to state. It does not currently have the power to deal state to private sector, but it could have if the Government gave it that mandate. It could do that by simply saying, "Would you please do it". It would not even take a change in parliamentary legislation.
We have this corporation already. It has been doing a good job. It has been serving the farmers of western Canada with regard to canola very well. The Crown corporation does exist. If that is the case, why all this great hue and cry when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) brings forward legislation to provide an agricultural equivalent to the Canadian Commercial Corporation?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, in response, I would pose a question to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). He must not be aware that under the Agriculture Products Act the Minister of Agriculture already has those powers. They are all there, they have been there for a long time and the Minister did not use them. He said he needs a new Act, a whole new Bill. He needed more powers when he had all the powers which the Member for Ottawa Centre asks for.
We have the Canadian Commercial Corporation which has powers in agricultural export also, and the Government did not use them. It wanted to bring in another Bill, a Canagrex Bill designed specifically for agriculture. When we look at other countries that have state-controlled agriculture and export organizations, we see that they are not doing so great when it comes to feeding their own people. We in Canada have been doing pretty well. That is one of the reasons why we are suspect. All these powers have been in these two Acts. We are not sure why the Minister wants to bring in more.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak in the House to a Bill we shall be adopting today, whose purpose is to create the Canagrex corporation. I think Canada has a duty to acquire this export mechanism if it is to remain competitive with other countries in the world that are taking concrete steps to extend export markets for their agricultural products. These countries, which are providing some very stiff competition, have already taken steps to increase their exports of agri-food products, and I am thinking
more particularly of our neighbours to the South, the Americans.
In fact, the U.S. has several mechanisms, such as the Foreign Agriculture Service, the Co-operative Program, the Commodity Credit Corporation and many related credit programs such as Public Law 480, which are aimed at improving their agri-food exports which are already earning $36 billion for the U.S.. This shows the kind of priority set by countries like the United States on exports of agri-foods products. Other countries have followed suit, including France, Denmark, Great Britain, Germany, Israel and Mexico, and set up appropriate mechanisms to maximize the development of their export markets.
The powers granted to agencies in the United States to facilitate sales of agricultural products provide for a sensible and flexible approach to seeking out export markets. It is also very interesting to note that the industry is seeking further powers. In addition, many groups are in favour of increased coordination of efforts, and pressure is very strong for adopting the Export Trading Act, which will create export trading companies similar to the Japanese giants that deal with all aspects of exports. In other words, Canada will be facing increasing competition on the market, and it must act now before it is too late.
Some people claim that Canagrex will not be like the mechanisms that already exist in other countries for the purpose of developing exports of agri-food products. Nothing could be further from the truth! Our competitors are not competing with other sectors in their own countries but with other countries. They have created agencies to facilitate sales to foreign buyers, in order to maximize sales of their products. That is exactly what Canagrex will do: Act as an agent to facilitate and promote, through all its members as enumerated in the Bill, the rapid sales of Canadian agri-food products on foreign markets.
Mr. Speaker, to illustrate what is now happening to the export of Canadian agri-food products in certain sectors, I would like to quote the comments made by Mr. William Jenkins, former dean of the Nova Scotia College of Agriculture, during an interview last year. He said:
In the Atlantic provinces, the export of farm products is like a war. It is every man for himself, which is a very rudimentary way of selling any product ... It is nearly perfect chaos.
The Canadian agricultural industry cannot afford this. What the other countries are now doing to prevent such a war only confirms the importance of Canadian competition on export markets. I therefore urge the House to give rapid passage to the Bill on Canagrex by voting for it this evening. Thanks to the markets it will provide abroad, this corporation will help our farmers as well as Canada as a whole.
I heard earlier some Progressive Conservative Members who seemed at one point to give the impression that everyone is against the establishment of Canagrex, but I would like to
June 13, 1983

mention a few organizations that have supported Bill C-85, such as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which stated that the Canagrex Bill should be passed during this session, and that the agricultural industry desperately needs such a legislation.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture also sent a brief to members on both sides of the House in which it expressed its serious concern about the Canagrex issue. The Federation believes that it is desirable that such a development corporation have all the flexibility required to promote the development of Canadian exports, to take the risk of joint ventures, to provide specialized advice if need be, to negotiate from state to state in many circumstances where it is desirable or essential to share the risks and support long-term development, meet publicity requirements, provide guarantees and allow its employees to accept responsibility if required and to actively seek market opportunities.
And to that end, Mr. Speaker, in a document recently made available to us, it was stated that in the maple syrup industry, in particular, it was expected that with the setting up of this Canagrex corporation, sales could be arranged right now or at least over the next few months, the next few years, for up to $5 or $6 million more on markets such as Germany or Japan. I feel this is most important, especially in my constituency of Levis, on the South Shore, where a number of maple syrup producers, especially in the Beauce, Bellechasse and Lotbiniere areas have been faced over these last few years with important surpluses. It is my view that Canagrex comes at the right time in these circumstances to allow those maple syrup producers to unload or sell on export markets that production that is so expensive in Canada and in Quebec. I therefore expect that our Progressive Conservative friends cannot afford to oppose that over a long period.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture goes on to say that in their view, they cannot but conclude that the opposition to Canagrex should not be considered as a valid or substantive opposition but rather as a concern that the Corporation might be mismanaged and misused, that it might further its own expansionist goals without regard to the commodity sectors involved.
In setting up Canagrex, we explicitly and specifically say that for once, from its very beginning, we will have a Crown corporation that will be submitted to the control of the Auditor General. Reference is made to integrated audit, to reports which will have to be submitted to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. And these will come back to the House. I think that we have all the possible safeguards to make sure that the corporation will be efficiently managed.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we had the opportunity to meet with spokesmen for the Union des producteurs agricoles who were heard several times in connection with grain transportation and I have in mind that well-known Gilson report. In this case as with the policy on grain transportation, the UPA is begging the government to pass this legislation on Canagrex. I refer to a statement made by the UPA spokesman who
Canagrex
appeared before the Senate committee on February 2, 1983 and I quote:
The UPA welcomes, therefore, the principle of creating a corporation intended to promote, improve and diversify our export of agricultural and food products, and supports entirely the position taken by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to that effect. We hope, nevertheless, that Quebec will be adequately represented within Canagrex and that this Corporation will show both flexibility and good judgment in using the powers which are given to it. Finally, we hope fervently that the Federal Government will provide to Canagrex all the necessary funds for its effective functioning and that, on the other hand, the work of Canagrex will never be hampered by the sloth and bureaucratic complexity which are too often found in this kind of corporation.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and all of us have done a good job and in this legislation we have all the provisions required by the UPA.
And the UPA representative added this, since the submission of this brief, the UPA in particularly its president, Mr. Jacques Proulx, has constantly reiterated its support for the creation of a corporation to promote the export of agricultural and food products, and to press for the passage of Bill C-85, as can be seen from the various telegrams of which copies are appended to today's brief and which were sent to the Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister of Canada, the government House Leader, the leader of the official opposition, various federal and provincial ministers and the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Finally, last autumn, the UPA began to study the amended text of Bill C-85, as tabled by the Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture on July 19, 1982. After studying the amendments, the UPA declared itself to be completely in agreement with the proposed changes, while continuing to press for all the recommendations contained in its brief of April, 1982.
As well, Mr. Speaker, a spokesman for the Montreal Board of Trade appeared before the same Senate committee. I will quote him to indicate, as I said earlier, that someone may have been trying to give the impression that we are creating some kind of monster which will be a disservice to the agricultural community, but I think that by now we have the proof that many agricultural organizations support the establishment of Canagrex. Here is the statement which can be found in the minutes of the proceedings of the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture of Tuesday, February 1, 1983:
What we need is some way of guaranteeing steady supply-multi-year contracts-and, in addition, assisting with infrastructure in the receiving country because many of the countries we are talking about do not have the sophistication in terms of infrastructure-
I think that the Montreal Board of Trade goes further than the other organizations. It even talks about giving immediate and direct assistance to those countries which might eventually become our clients.
The spokesman for the Montreal Board of Trade went on to
say:
One of the reasons Canagrex is needed is that we have to start developing longterm markets. We have to do that to, basically, find out that specific research we need in order to match our ability to produce and the product we produce to the markets. It seems to me that nobody is doing enough in terms of finding out what

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
the needs and plans are in each country and converting that to what Canada has. Although research is covered in the bill, it seems to me that this would have to be done in co-ordination. Canagrex would be only a catalyst to get the research done. I do not think Canagrex should be the researcher per se.
We, as a country, have to export more agricultural products. Agribusiness is one of only about five areas of Canada's industry and economy where we can actually grow and, in fact, create employment. Referring to information I received from the Financial Post conference, there is capacity in Canada to produce two-thirds again the amount of agricultural products we currently produce.
Mr. Speaker, I have also read in Le Devoir an article by Florent Plante. It said that the National Council of the Parti Quebecois was warning farmers against Bill C-85 concerning Canagrex. I have been sitting in this House for a little more than two years, and my experience tells me that when the Parti Quebecois says that a proposal by the federal government should be rejected, it means precisely that it is time to approve this proposal. I believe we had had many examples of this in the last couple of years or months.
Also, we had the opportunity during the weekend to witness the nomination of a new leader for our friends in the Progressive Conservative Party, and I suggest we should perhaps ask Mr. Mulroney what is the position of this party concerning the establishment of Canagrex.
I think the time has come to ask the real questions, now that the convention is over, now that all those nice things have been said. Perhaps the time has now come to ask the new leader-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but it is now 5.45.

June 13, 1983



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan that Bill C-85, an Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada be read a third time and do pass.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 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 third reading stage of the Bill.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the Members.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the Hon. Members for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), Athabasca (Mr. Shields), Bow River (Mr. Taylor), Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), Perth (Mr. Jarvis), Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) and Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Saskatchewan.
If the House agrees, I would suggest that we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this days's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Division No. 332)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand
Althouse
Anguish
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Benjamin
Berger
Blackburn
Blaikie
Blais
Blaker
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Burghardt
Caccia
Campbell (Miss)
(South West Nova)
Campbell (LaSalle) Campbell (Cardigan) Chenier Chretien Collenette Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson
Deans
De Bane
de Corneille
de Jong
Demers
Deniger
Desmarais
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-Miramichi) Dubois Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
FI is
Foster
Fox
Francis
Frith
Fulton
Garant
Gauthier
June 13, 1983

Gimai'el
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.)
Hovdebo
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Keeper
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Knowles
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lamontagne
Landers
Laniel
Lapierre
Andre
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton)
Beatty
Blenkarn
Messrs.
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lewycky
Loiselle
MacBain
MacGuigan
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Manly
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Miller
Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Parker
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
++NAYS
Messrs.
Bosley Cardiff Carney (Miss) Clark
(Yellowhead)
Canagrex
Messrs.
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Riis Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Waddell Watson Weatherhead Whelan Yanakis Young-148.
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates
Cook	Hees	MurtaCooper	Hnatyshyn	NeilCorbett	Howie	NickersonCossitt (Mrs.)	Huntington	NielsenCrombie	Jarvis	NowlanCrosbie	Jelinek	Paproski(St. John's West)	Kempling	PattersonCrouse	Kilgour	ReidDantzer	King	(St. Catharines)Darling	Korchinski	RocheDick	Kushner	SchellenbergerDomm	Lambert	ScottElzinga	Lawrence	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Epp	Lewis	ScottFennell	MacDonald (Miss)	(Victoria-Haliburton)Forrestall	(Kingston and the Islands) Shields	Fraser	Malone	SiddonFretz	Mayer	SpeyerFriesen	Mazankowski	StevensGamble	McCain	StewartGass	McCuish	TaylorGilchrist	McDermid	ThackerGreenaway	McGrath	ThomsonGurbin	McKenzie	TowersGustafson	McKinnon	WenmanHalliday	McKnight	WilsonHamilton	McLean	Wise(Qu'Appelle- Moose	McMillan	WrightMountain)	Mitges	Yurko-94.Hargrave	Munro	Hawkes	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Madam Speaker	: I declare the	motion carried. Motion
agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.
It now being six o'clock I do now leave the Chair until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, June 14, 1983