1985-11-07

Hon. Michael Wilson (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-64, an Act to amend the Seeds Act and the Canada Grains Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take this opportunity to speak on this Bill. To a great extent, this Bill is a housekeeping Bill. It changes the regulations under which the seed growers of Canada operate. In that sense, it is something for which the grain growers have been waiting for a considerable time. Therefore, it is important that the Bill be passed. We hope it will have the effect of tightening up a number of concerns we have about the seed structure.
At committee stage, two very small amendments were made to the Bill, both of which were very technical in nature. Consequently, there will be no consideration of those amendments before the House.
I would like to spend my time pointing out that regardless of the fact that a need for these Acts has been shown in the past and it is a good thing they exist, they do not deal with the requirements of the farmers. Tightening the mechanism and making the advertising adhere to the structure so that it may be more honest are things that need to be done, but the Bill will only help the very few people who find themselves in a particular situation. Consequently, we should spend more of the time of the House establishing some kind of structure to ensure that the farmers can survive from year to year while producing seed. Right now, for instance, every farmer is faced with continuing increases in costs. Fuel, chemicals, fertilizers, machinery, taxes and transportation costs are all going up and they all impact upon the ability of the farmer to stay viable.
[DOT] (mo)
We have been spending a considerable amount of time in the Standing Committee on Agriculture lately discussing the Western Grain Stabilization Plan. We have had a number of suggestions as to how we can put in place a safety net so that the farmer can survive in bad times. However, we are not spending enough time making sure the farmer will survive under general circumstances.
I know that almost every time the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) stands up he lists the number of things this Government has done for farmers, most of which are cosmetic and have had no real impact on the ability of the farmer to survive. We have had quite a lot of lip service paid to the necessity of the survival of the family farm as a basic farm unit. It is a sort of motherhood issue. Everyone says, yes, we have to keep the family farm. Then this Government, like the U.S. Government, allows things to happen which eliminate the family farm and reduce the number of farmers to a level which makes farming much more inefficient. Everyone accepts the fact that the family farm is probably the most efficient unit. On the Prairies it is no longer a quarter or half section, it gets up to a section or six-quarters. It has increased in size in the east as well. However, it is still the family farm unit which produces more effectively.
One of the promises this Government made during the election campaign was that it would do something about the financial structure of the farming industry. This, of course, affects the seed farmer as well. A number of promises were made. Agri-bonds were promised. A reduction of interest rates was promised. A third promise was the elemination of capital gains. Of the three, the agri-bonds died somewhere in the structure. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said he could not bring that proposal forward.
The reduction in world-wide interest rates has alleviated the need for the Government to do something about direct financing of farmers, but we still have many more farm bankruptcies than we should have. It is not just the poor farmer who is going under; in many cases, the most efficient and aggressive farmers are affected by this lack of financing. The Government has failed to do anything about the need to allow farmers to survive because of the financial structure of the country. It seems to me that the responsibility for bankruptcies in the farm sector, as well as in all other sectors, should not necessarily always fall on the borrower. The time has come to start telling lending institutions that they must take half the risk, that if there is a bankruptcy they will only get half their money back and the bankrupt should have the right to keep some of it. We need to look at that kind of financial structure

November 7, 1985
Seeds and Grain Acts
which would put the responsibility for the loan on the institution which lends as well as on the borrower.
[DOT]	(ms)
The Government has gone along with the user-pay philosophy which affects seed growers specifically. The Government did this in transportation and other areas of the farming industry. In the case of the seed producer, the Government has put in place fees which have tremendously increased the cost of production of seed grains. The Government used to provide inspectors to inspect crops in the field and to inspect seeds to ensure the purity of those being sold at a minimal expense to the farmer. In many cases this has now become a much greater expense to the point where seed growers in my area feel that they cannot now afford to certify as much seed as they used to. Consequently, they are now selling uncertified seeds to a much greater extent than they did in the past and they do not get the same return on their products. The effect of the Government's acceptance of the Liberal philosophy of user-pay is to reduce incomes and make some farms much less viable because the cost of inspection of seed grains and meat is being carried by the farmer to a much greater extent.
The capital gains tax exemption, which I mentioned earlier, is a very acceptable program as far as farmers are concerned. The Finance Committee recommended the capital gains tax exemption for farmers and small business only, but the Government bent under the requirements of the larger financial community and gave it to everyone. Therefore, those who needed it the most got it, but those who did not need it got it as well. That has tremendously reduced the amount of taxes which could have been collected from speculative investments. Although that measure is valuable to the farmer, it is somewhat suspect as a national policy of reducing the amount of taxes to be paid by speculators who build themselves condominiums in Florida and make a lot of money through their resale.
[DOT]	(H20)
As part of its commitment to make it easier for farmers to survive, the Government also promised to reduce or rebate the fuel tax. Although this was done, if one adds the total increases that will have taken place by next year, the farmers will be paying more for their fuel than they were before the Government reduced the fuel tax. Although the Government fulfilled its promise, the important beneficial effect of that reduction disappeared so that farmers are now paying a greater proportion of their input costs to fuel.
It was not long ago when fuel was considered a minor expenditure as far as most producers were concerned. Now it is one of the major expenses, along with fertilizer, chemicals, machinery and taxes.
While the Seeds Act amendments increase protection for the seed grower, they also increase his cost. While it appears that there is some value to the amendments to the Seeds Act, they take away enough so that many seed growers who demanded these amendments are not certain that they will do them much
good. While the Act may protect the quality of seeds, ultimately it may reduce the quality because people will not want to spend the extra amount to maintain it.
I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) should be more careful with respect to quality. In western Canada there has been a sudden influx of a considerable amount of dwarf soft wheats which are of very inferior quality. The Grains Commission licensed the growing of HY 320, which can be identified on site as a dwarf wheat because it has a considerable amount of white wheat. However, there is a wide variety of dwarf wheat that is grown in North America and around the world that is almost impossible to identify on site.
While the Government expresses much concern in its Bill about the quality of seed, it has allowed the growing of these dwarf wheats. Farmers will not grow these dwarf wheats purposely but eventually, as this dwarf wheat is mixed with quality seeds of our hard northern wheats, the quality of our product will be reduced. Rather than being able to sell the best wheat in the world, the purchasing countries will consider our wheat as being of no better quality than those wheats which are produced in many other wheat growing areas of the world. We have been able to sell hard northern wheats because they are used to upgrade the quality of flour all over the world. Consequently, we have markets that will remain even when the rest of the production is difficult to sell. Hard northern wheats have always sold. If we get too much of this dwarf soft wheat mixed in with our crops, eventually we will have a difficult time selling it.
The Government has a responsibility. This Bill suggests that the Government is going to take that responsibility seriously because it mentions making quality one of the requirements for seed grains that are sold here. The Government does not seem to be taking this seriously in the sense that we can no longer be sure that the Government will take care of the quality of our seeds. The Government is now allowing soft dwarf wheats to come into Canada for planting and they are being accepted on the market.
We should look at what might happen to the viability of farms if we go into a free trade situation with the United States. There has been a suggestion that a free trade region would be designated between Canada and the United States. 1 hope the Government, when it does go into the negotiations, which it seems to be leading up to, recognizes that when it comes to free trade in agriculture, we are on somewhat dangerous ground. It is very important that we do not become fortress America. We do not want everybody saying: "You are exactly the same as the States and we can expect the same kind of treatment from you as we do from the United States". Much of the acceptance of our agricultural products and seeds has been based on the fact that we have established a market around the world. It would be too bad if in the process of establishing a free trade area in Canada and the United States
November 7, 1985

we were to alienate those markets that are so important to us in other parts of the world.
Even within the seed producing structure, Mr. Speaker, many of the structures which have made our agricultural industry stable, things like the Dairy Commission, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Poultry Commission, stable at least part of the time, are of concern. This situation must be looked at in terms of free trade. It would be very detrimental if we found that these structures were dismantled because the Government did not want to make them part of a protected area in free trade negotiations.
The Government does not have a particularly good record. 1 suppose we could say that it has a poor record of protection of the agricultural industry when it comes to trade. It has failed to protect us from beef imports from Ireland and the EEC. It has failed to deal with countervailing duties on pork by the United States, although they have been reduced to some extent. It even closed down Canagrex, a Crown corporation which was established with the intention of increasing the sale of agricultural products all over the world. It closed down Canagrex, the marketing agency for Canadian agricultural products, and has failed to put anything in its place. It makes noises about the commercial agencies in each country doing the same work. That might have been acceptable if it had happened, but it has not happened. Consequently, the possibility of increasing our trade with countries other than the United States-and even with the United States-has slowed down. There has not been any action in that direction since the closing down of Canagrex almost a year ago.
Incidentally, we have been awaiting an annual report from Canagrex. It is due, legally, but it has not appeared. In fact, it was due some time ago. I guess we should be asking for it more often than we have.
The Government has been promising-and I see the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) across the way-for some time that it would provide some kind of drought payment for western Canada. That has just not happened. What has happened is that there was a commitment of the Saskatchewan Government and the federal Government of $90 per head for livestock. That promise of $60 by the provincial Government and $30 by the federal Government floundered somewhere along the line. Unfortunately, the Government of Saskatchewan pocketed the $30, and we have a payment of $60 per head to stock producers. Grain producers are still waiting for the Government to take some action on the drought relief program.
I have gone over a litany of promises and areas where the Government says that it has done something to help agriculture. In effect there has been no real impact on the viability of the industry. In some cases it has been a situation of too litle too late. In other cases it has been a situation of cosmetic changes, which have no impact on the incomes of individual farmers.
Seeds and Grain Acts
One of our concerns with the particular Bill-and I must say that it does not appear as a factor in the Bill and it is not a reason to consider holding it up-is that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary indicated in their speeches, when they initially spoke to the House on the Bill, that it was an initial step to the establishment of plant breeders' patent legislation. I hesitate to use the term "plant breeders' rights" because I think it is a misnomer, although it has been suggested by the seed industry. I must point out that it is not the small farm seed industry which has been pressing for the Bill. It is the multinational seed industry. Most of the small seed plants in western Canada have been purchased by multinational chemical companies and grain moving companies. In fact, the basic seed industry, the handling of seeds, is gradually going out of the small business area and becoming part of the international agri-business area.
This is a concern which Canadians, particularly seed growers who will be making use of the changes in the Act, should recognize. Even as we tighten up the machinery and the advertising possibilities in the Act, we should be concerned that the Act does not lead to taking away from small seed producers the rights to handle grain and to do the kind of breeding they want to do, which may eventually go to large corporations that in the end do not help producers. Perhaps seed producers might get in on some of the gravy if a plant breeders' patent law were in place, but the cost of seeds to farmers would increase considerably. Of course that is another area which needs to be flagged but is not part of the Bill.
In closing, let me suggest that in the process of dealing with the Bill-and I understand that we will allow it to pass in this session-we as responsible parliamentarians should look at the kind of agricultural income security which makes it possible for seed growers, in fact for all producers in the agricultural industry, to survive. We should ensure that the viability of the family farm, or any kind of farm, is enhanced by the legislation which we pass. This piece of legislation does that to a small extent, but it does not deal with the real problems of the agricultural industry in Canada.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak on Bill C-64. This long-awaited legislation will amend the Seed Act in a very important way. The amendments are in recognition of the important changes which have occurred in the seed industry during the 26 years since the last major changes to the Act were implemented. This legislation has been a long time in the making, and I am pleased to say that it has very broad support.
Extensive consultations occurred with the provinces and with all major associations whose members could be affected prior to the Bill's introduction in this House.
It was unanimously passed at the committee stage following a complete and, I believe, a fruitful discussion regarding several important aspects.

November 7, 1985
Seeds and Grain Acts
The widespread support for this legislation is understandable. It will serve to strengthen an Act which governs a very important industry in this country, the seed growing industry.
Canada exports about $50 million worth of seed annually, and approximately $300 million worth of seed is sold domestically.
Of course, commercial seeds are the basis of our grain production industry, an industry that exports in excess of $4 billion worth of grains annually. Clearly, it is an industry that is dependent upon the integrity of our seed growing industry.
For the past 80 years, the federal Government has been involved in the regulation and control of seed varieties. The Seeds Act includes a grading system for seed quality, a licensing system for crop varieties, and labelling requirements to help the buyer identify quality seeds.
During the quarter century since the Act was last amended in a significant way, the industry has grown tremendously. There has been a great deal more involvement by the private sector in plant breeding. Bill C-64 responds to these changes.
In essence, this Bill will strengthen the seed licensing system, while providing greater protection against false advertising of seeds.
Perhaps the most important provision is one which will help to ensure that farmers actually receive the seed they assume they are buying based on the product's advertising.
While the current Act regulates the labelling of seed packages, those same regulations do not extend to seed advertising. As a result, it is possible for farmers to buy seed which the advertising tells them is of a certain variety when in fact it is not. Therefore, provisions in Bill C-64 will provide for the disclosure of certain information in advertising and restrict the use of variety names. This is similar to the current requirements for labelling.
I am reminded of the remarks made by the Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Seed Trade Association, Mr. Bill Leask, during committee study of this legislation, in which he stressed the importance of strengthening the Seeds Act to include the regulation of pedigreed seed advertising.
He said that the vast majority of seed companies that do operate within the licensing and pedigreeing process deserve to have their credibility protected. They want assurance that producers who buy a company's product by variety name receive the actual controlled product.
In order to enforce the Act adequately, it is necessary to impose tougher penalties for violations. Therefore, the maximum penalty, on summary conviction, will be raised from $500 to $2,500, with the courts having the discretion of setting the level in cases of conviction by indictment.
This is a significant change and a necessary one in order to indicate this Government's commitment to the maintenance of a high quality seed industry in Canada.
Under the current Act, the losses to the buyer of defective seed can easily exceed the minimum fine imposed on the person who has sold the seed. The intent of Bill C-64 is to
allow the courts the discretion of setting fines in relation to the damage caused.
In connection with this provision, the Bill also extends the time limit for instituting proceedings by way of summary conviction. This will allow investigators adequate time to prepare their cases and will ensure that no case is dropped merely as a result of inadequate investigation time.
By way of housekeeping measures, Bill C-64 sets out a new system for daily amendments to the registry of seed varieties. It also changes the bonding provision by transferring bonding authority, through the Seeds Act, from the jurisdiction of Customs and Excise to Agriculture Canada.
And finally, this Bill will clarify the role of the Canadian Seed Growers' Association in the Seeds Act.
As I stated earlier, Bill C-64 has widespread support among the provinces and the seed associations. I know that all Members of this House will want to support this Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments?


Mr. Althouse:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Gustafson) to review for us the manner in which the registry of accepted varieties will be changed through Bill C-64 and what those improvements will be.


Leonard J. Gustafson: The importance of having this Bill passed is the fact that there are a number of varieties in the marketplace which must be controlled. An example already given is HY 320. HY 320 is a variety that can be easily distinguished.
It is important to protect the integrity of the pedigreed and registry seeds. A farmer buying seeds must be assured that he is getting the variety that he desires. The farming community has to have the assurance that there are no problems in relation to the seeds being received. As well, the producers need to be assured that we have the research and development infrastructure such that we can compete effectively in the international market-place.
Bill C-64 addresses these matters, providing the Government, through legislation, the means with which to deal with any infractions.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: notwithstanding that Canadian producers have stopped using them.


Leonard J. Gustafson: In answering the question, Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is important that the Department have the flexibility to deal with whatever situation should arise. As I suggested earlier, the regulations must be such that they are capable of dealing with any infraction that should present itself. However, certainly it is not the intent of this legislation to restrict in any way varieties that would be in the best interests of farming practices, whether that be in practice itself or for further research.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just a few words concerning the Bill which is before us. As Hon. Members have pointed out, the Bill concerns a better control of the quality and market representation of seed, the control of the advertising of seed, the imposition of fines for violations and the extension of time limits for investigative practices.
As I was listening to Hon. Members debate the Bill I was thinking that what many farmers in a great many areas of western Canada have on their minds is that, yes, it is fine to be debating a bill such as this which provides better regulations concerning seed, but a seed for what? In other words it should not be forgotten, and it should be of paramount importance to this parliamentary body, to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), to Cabinet and all Members of Parliament, that certain segments of the farming community are going through an incredibly bad time simply because of a natural disaster. I suppose that disaster has really hit primay producers from British Columbia to Newfoundland as far as the fishing industry and farming communities are concerned.
I think it is useful for all Members to keep in mind that for once-and this is the worst possible situation we have seen for many years-farmers in certain areas of the country have been left in an absolutely desperate situation which has to be addressed as an emergency. It is fine for us to talk about legislation which corrects some matters which have occurred in the long term, but there is a short-term immediate problem facing a great number of farmers in the country to the point where some are wondering just how they can last from day to day. I speak of certain areas of Saskatchewan, as was outlined by the Hon. Member who spoke a few moments ago. There, for the first time in their lives, farmers have been forced to go to the welfare office.
It is useful to keep that in mind and to continue to remind the Government, the House and the Canadian people that there is a crisis today which faces the farming community-a crisis which has to be addressed as an emergency by the Government. As far as I can see, it is not being addressed. It is not being addressed on the urgent basis on which we have addressed problems in the past with respect to primary producers in other areas of the country.
Customs Act
It is sometimes gratifying to listen to the Government because it does and has responded to the primary producers on the East Coast where, because of weather conditions and so on, the fishery was bad. There was an immediate monetary response by the Government, in co-operation with the provincial Government.
When we talk about rectifying problems which have to do with the marketing of seed I wish to place on the record that there is an overriding and immediate problem of farmers having to go to the welfare office. There are problems within our system and our social security safety net as it applies to primary producers who are self-employed. I wanted to place those words on the record in the closing moments of a debate which deals with an important subject, as Hon. Members have said. However, there are certainly other subjects which are far more important and more urgent in terms of certain farmers in the country which need to be addressed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


CUSTOMS ACT
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue) moved: that Bill C-59, an Act respecting Customs, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak briefly on Bill C-59, a Bill dealing with the Customs Act, which is before us today for third and final reading. One might say that it is a piece of legislation whose time has come. As the House knows, this is an important piece of legislation, one which will replace an outdated and, in many ways, archaic statute and one which will facilitate a more streamlined and responsive approach to the management of customs matters in the country. Passage of Bill C-59 will help the Government fulfil a number of commitments it made to the House and to the country.
One of these commitments is to reduce and eliminate unnecessary costs and an unnecessary paper burden for those Canadians and Canadian firms with whom the Government does business. Another is to improve the over-all efficiency and productivity of government operations themselves. The new

November 7, 1985
Customs Act
Customs Act, which is attuned to modern developments, methods, business practice and transportation will help us achieve these goals. It will do so without weakening in any way the Department's basic role of collecting duties and enforcing Canadian law relating to importation and exportation of goods. The legislation will help customs personnel do their work better and, in the process, of course, it will benefit the Canadian public.
I would like to thank and congratulate members of the legislative committee which reviewed Bill C-59 under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). 1 thought the committee acted in a very expeditious yet thorough manner when it examined this piece of legislation. The committee met several times during September and October and received representations from various organizations which will be affected by this legislation. In general, I think the representations which were made both by committee members and by witnesses were constructive and reflected the widespread support for this measure which has developed in the House and among Canadians generally.
1 would like to recognize the contribution of the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) and the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) for their constructive commentary during debate and the parliamentary and committee deliberations of this Bill, as well as the leadership of my Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent).
I think the broad support for this legislation is due in no small part to the extensive consultation which the Department undertook in its preparation. During the development of this Bill, considerable dialogue was undertaken with those affected by its provisions. Their input was encouraged and some of their suggestions are incorporated in the final version of this Bill.
A number of amendments to Bill C-59 were made at committee stage, some as a result of representations made by members and interested organizations, others of a relatively minor and technical nature. To illustrate, one of the amendments was made as a result of concerns expressed about Clause 110(3), which permits a customs officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that the Act or regulations have been contravened to seize anything that he or she has reason to believe will afford evidence of a contravention of the Act. Some Hon. Members, and particularly the Hon. Member for Regina East, expressed some reservations about the powers implicit in this clause. These are concerns which I shared and which seemed well founded. They prompted some reconsideration. As a result, an amendment was adopted to require a customs officer who seizes anything as evidence to report the circumstances forthwith to the Deputy Minister of National Revenue. This will provide a strong degree of administrative control and will help ensure that this power is not abused.
An amendment to Clause 135(1) will extend the length of time allowed for a person to appeal a forfeiture decision from
30 to 90 days. This amendment was made in response to representations that the 30 day period originally set out was inadequate. During the course of the committee hearings, I believe committee members became convinced as I am of the need to give customs officials the right to open mail items weighing more than 30 grams without first obtaining the permission of the sender or the addressee. Of course, no item could be opened unless officials had reasonable grounds to suspect that dutiable or prohibited materials were enclosed. This change is necessary so that the Department may effectively carry out its role of protecting Canadians from the importation of prohibited items such as drugs or pornography. An amendment was introduced to permit customs officials to be given this authority prior to the proclamation of the Act which 1 hope will occur in June of next year.
I would also like to remind the House that one of the more progressive features of the new Customs Act is a provision for ongoing review. This is provided for in Clause 168 of the Bill. Clause 168 also requires that a committee of Parliament must, within five years, undertake a comprehensive review of the operations of the Act. In addition, regulations which flesh out the details of the Act must be published 60 days in advance of their coming into force. These two features will ensure that Government takes into account on a continuing basis any concerns of Members of Parliament, the importing community and of course the public at large.
Customs officials who serve in cities, towns and villages scattered all across Canada play an important role in protecting Canadian society and in providing service to the travelling public and Canadian businesses. This new law should enable us to enforce our laws even more effectively and at the same time to improve our service to the Canadian public. The Bill before us today has broad support from the business community and others who will be affected by its provisions. I hope that all Members of the House will join me in expediting third reading so that this important measure may be enacted at an early date. I thank the House for its indulgence.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 too wish to congratulate members of the standing committee for the excellent job they did in hearing briefs, for taking into account certain of the representations made and for changing the Bill. The introduction of this Bill has been necessary for years. Now we finally have a Bill that incorporates things that have been done by customs in Customs. The Bill was originally proposed by the former Liberal administration and then taken in hand by the now Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) who, about a year ago, was the Minister responsible. It was then successfully put through the House by the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay). Perhaps that Minister deserves more credit than the former Minister who is presently the Solicitor General.
I think most of what deserves to be said about this Bill was said at second reading stage and in committee. I believe it is a good Bill and I think we all agree with that. We do have certain reservations about certain clauses of the Bill, clauses to which the Minister referred a few moments ago.
November 7, 1985

There is a point of overriding concern that was made by the union of the Canadian Customs inspectors in its presentation to the committee and that point referred to the pilot project which was ongoing in Montreal. It concerns the need for the Government to keep in mind that in order to carry out legislation such as this, we may require more public servants so that the Bill may work the way it is supposed to work. Estimates have been made concerning the need for an increased staff in the Customs Department. According to union representations, staff should be increased by about 15 per cent while the pilot projects that were undertaken indicate that an increase of about 20 per cent in the workforce is needed.
In passing this Bill, which was amended at committee and agreed to by all of those who made representations, the Government must now keep in mind that it has an obligation to reverse the trend which was announced by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) of cut-backs within the Department of National Revenue. It is fine to pass the legislation which tells the Customs Department that it will do this, that and the other thing, but if the Department does not have the employees to carry these things out, there is no sense in passing the Bill.
With that one reservation and a warning to the President of the Treasury Board, the Bill should pass. The statement made by the President of the Treasury Board in November certainly has to be re-examined as does the statement made by the Minister of Finance in his Budget. To carry out what is described in this Bill as being necessary for the protection of the Canadian public as it relates to the possible mailing of drugs will require additional personnel to enforce.
I feel certain that if the Bill had been passed under the previous administration, we would have had no problem whatsoever with increasing the staff of Customs by 20 per cent so that it could carry out the requirements of this Bill. However, the Customs Department is being held down by the statements of the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance. I am sure that the Minister who is now responsible for the Department of National Revenue will be making the necessary representations in Cabinet and I am sure that the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board will see the light and at least assign more personnel to the Department so that the provisions of this Bill can be properly carried out as is the desire of Parliament.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, much if not all of the work on this Bill has already been done. We are now making some final comments with regard to loose ends that may need to be tied up. I recognize that the Bill in itself is so technical that it would be virtually impossible to have a reasoned debate at this time. I do not propose to attempt to address those technical questions.
It is always a pleasure to listen to the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). I know that he has had a long and abiding interest in the matter of customs tariffs and has made an in-depth study of it. Having done that, he has accepted much of what is contained in the Bill perhaps,
Customs Act
because it was originally introduced by a Government of which he was a member but probably because he understands the necessity to pull together in one concise statute all the things that have occurred and the directions the Government has been taking over the last number of years. However, the point that was made, one I wanted to make myself, regarding the submission of the Customs and Excise Union and the Public Service Alliance of Canada is an important one and should be reinforced. I feel confident that the Minister, although he has not moved to correct at least two of the points in the submission, will do so over the course of the next few months.
On the whole question of the reduction in manpower, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) indicated some time ago that it was the Government's intention to reduce the total number of person-years in this field. While 1 do not think anyone would deny that where there is evidence of an over-abundance of manpower an effort should be made to trim it to a size necessary to meet requirements, the problem that seems to arise as a result of this legislation and the implementation, particularly of the pilot project in Montreal, leads to the conclusion that more manpower rather than less will be required. The reduction by the year 1990 or 1992 of about 25 per cent of the number of persons employed, when weighed against what appears to be an increased workload as a result of this legislation, just does not seem to make much sense. I certainly have difficulty understanding the rationale. Whether he responds today or takes it under advisement and reviews it over a period of time to determine whether or not the statistical information is in keeping with the facts gained by experience, it is essential that the Minister or the Ministry has a watching brief on whether or not we are overburdening the existing employees in this area of his responsibility.
The difficulty which will arise will be as follows. Employees can only do so much. We are moving to an honour system in certain areas. Human nature being what it is, there will be a tendency for people perhaps to attempt to avoid payment of the necessary tariffs voluntarily. That will result in one of two things. There will be a reduction of revenue; it was suggested, for example, in the brief I mentioned, that the uncollected revenue in Montreal as a result of the pilot project could approximate $100,000 per month. If that were true and one extrapolates that over an extended period of time, it is not difficult to see where the Government could lose many millions of dollars. It may not turn out that way. I am prepared to concede that this is possible. However, I think we have to be sure that careful scrutiny is maintained to guarantee that in an honour system such as this the moneys owed are collected.
I believe the Minister is aware that in Winnipeg, but it might have been someplace else, there was a sort of honour system concerning the payment of traffic violation fines. The end result, of course, was that they had to go back to an enforcement process. Going back is always more difficult than leaving something in place. I think the Minister appreciates that. What we are saying is this. It would appear that, with the reduction in the number of person-years, inevitably there will

November 7, 1985
Customs Act
be a heavier workload on those who are left. That could and probably will mean that people who, by design, are attempting to avoid paying the necessary tariff or attempting to circumvent the law and bring into Canada illicit substances will have a better opportunity to do so. I have to wonder whether that is what the Government had in mind. 1 seriously doubt it.
In any event, as I said, the changes are welcomed in general by most people. The effect on the employees will be felt fairly dramatically. The possibility of a loss of a substantial number of dollars is there. The honour system, as I understand it, is not yet fully analysed and will require further analysis before we make any final and conclusive decision. However, I suggest to the Minister that at the end of a reasonable period of time, perhaps six months from now, he take it upon himself to report back to the House on the actual workings of the honour system. He could perhaps report by way of a statement regarding the revenue collected under the system as opposed to the previous system, as well as on whether or not the methods of collection are yielding the results the Government anticipated and hoped for. If he does that, if he keeps a very close watch on the increased workload which may and I think will result from the decrease in manpower, if he makes a commitment should it be the case that either we are losing money or the workload is being increased to the point where individuals are required to do far more than can reasonably be expected of them, and he undertakes to make the changes necessary, then I think we would accept the legislation. We will expect to hear from him in regard to those two important matters.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a few comments, but I am not going to talk about the technical features of this Bill. Rather, I will talk about the Department as a whole and the image it has developed over the years and how it will be helped or possibly hurt by this Bill.
It is very frustrating for an individual who knows his duty and his responsibility but is unable to carry it out because there is just not enough manpower. It is important that we put on the record the feelings the public has about the Department, particularly those crossing our borders and paying their customs and excise duties and who are being hassled while they do so.
If I understand it correctly, the purpose of the Bill is to overhaul the 118-year old Customs Act. Periodically over the years the Government has responded to problems which have developed in this area by making changes. Bill C-59 seeks to respond to a number of archaic provisions in the Act and to improve its administration. Because of that, I suppose we are allowing the Government, as is its responsibility, to update and codify what it must do to make it work better and easier. The customs branch is primarily concerned with the processing of goods and individuals across international boundaries. To a great extent that has involved for the general public the crossing of the U.S.-Canadian border.
In 1983 the Department undertook a study and there were a number of interesting things revealed in it which we should not lose sight of. The real impact of that study was that, despite all the rules and regulations which exist, the individual judgment of the officer is the most important factor in dealing with the Department. The study concluded that no matter how well intentioned entry laws may be, compliance with them, in the final analysis, is directly proportional to the Department's capacity to enforce them. In other words, the Department has to be concerned with the ability of individual customs officers to enforce the rules and regulations. How they do it is as important, in many cases, as the rules themselves. The kind of character which determines how those rules are put into effect establishes the kind of experience which the general public will have with the Department and, therefore, establishes the image of the Department.
We all know that the taxation branch of the Department of National Revenue has a great deal of discretionary power which, in most cases, is used very well. However, the cases which we hear of are those cases in which that discretionary power is abused. I am sure that every Member in the House could relate one or two incidents which happened to them, their families or their constituents where the people on the receiving end felt that they had been abused. In my own experience as a Member I know that in some cases the officer has been over-zealous in trying to fulfil what is required of him. I have soemtimes worried about whether there is pressure on the officer to make a certain number of inspections even when it involves the same individual on many occasions.
In the city of Prince Albert there is a small office and probably only half a dozen businessmen use it on a consistent basis. I become concerned when, after using the services for many months or years without any concerns, an officer suddenly decides it is time to check on something. I can give a number of examples of goods being sent back before the period of time for holding them had expired. I do not want to belabour that particular point and I know the Minister has received a number of letters from me about that concern.
I think we all know that it is necessary for the powers to be put in the hands of the officer. He needs those powers and it is a good thing that he has them. I am, however, concerned that the powers are sometimes used to the detriment of the image of the Department. In some cases it may be good judgment to be less zealous.
To expand upon this concern, I suppose we should worry about the process by which the officers are recruited and the training which is given to them after they are recruited as well as the type of individual that is recruited. I am sure that Canadians generally expect their customs officers to be civil, reasonable and respectful in order that the crossing of a border will not be an unpleasant experience. 1 have crossed the Canadian border in both directions countless times and have never had an unpleasant experience in doing so. I believe that probably 99 per cent of crossings are not unpleasant experiences. I also believe that 99 per cent or more of the people
November 7, 1985

crossing the border are honest and have no intention of taking advantage of the situation at the border. However, I hear that there are places where it is very unpleasant to cross the border and that depends to a large extent on the type of men and women who are customs officers. The point that 1 am making is that it is important that new recruits do not feel that enforcement requires that they hassle people. I am glad to see that the processes through which the Department is going is actually toward establishing a system under which that will probably be the rule rather than the exception.
I hope that the process through which we are going in the passing of a series of Bills in this House is aimed at the very well articulated concern that the previous Minister of National Revenue put before the country. 1 am sure the present Minister agrees that he believed that while the responsibility of the officers of the Department must be recognized, the way they enforce the rules is as important as having the proper legislation and regulations. I simply wanted to take this opportunity to make that statement for the record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


CANAGREX DISSOLUTION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Layton (for the Minister of Agriculture) that Bill C-42, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to resume debate on Bill C-42, an Act to dissolve Canagrex. I was waiting for some action from the government benches, hoping that someone would offer an explanation as to why this particular Bill is being put before us. The Government has not spent much time attempting to explain why it is dissolving Canagrex, which is not surprising when one sees the ambivalence with which the Government has viewed this agency.
The Conservatives supported Canagrex enthusiastically when the Bill to create Canagrex was first introduced in the House. The Conservative House Leader at that time, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), praised the legislation at first reading. It is very rare for anyone to say anything about a
Canagrex Dissolution Act
Bill at first reading, yet the Conservative House Leader of the day did just that. He suggested that it was time for such a Bill to be introduced and that such a Bill was at the drawing-board stage under the Minister of Agriculture in the 1979 Conservative Government. According to the Member for Yukon, the Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) had been responsible for that work and his Party welcomed the Bill with open arms.
The initial speeches which were made at second reading stage of the Bill show that the only criticism from the Member for Elgin was that not enough money would be spent to organize Canagrex. The Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) suggested that this legislation was a great step forward in assisting the cattle producers in his riding to export calves to Israel.
The legislation progressed smoothly until the Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), the current Minister of Finance, said that he believed the Conservative Party should be opposed to agencies such as Canagrex because it is a Crown corporation that would be involved to some extent in the selling and exporting of agricultural products. While he stated that it was his opinion and that of his Party that such agencies should not exist, he made no mention of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Dairy Commission and some other very popular agencies.
From that date forward, however, the die was cast, the Conservative Party turned 180 degrees and became the opponent of Canagrex, fighting it in committee and in the House. The agency had just been established when the Conservatives became the new Government. One of the first actions outlined in the Economic Statement, which was made shortly after the House resumed its new session, was that Canagrex would be dissolved.
When the Conservatives were in Opposition they advocated open Government. It was only after the Economic Statement that we caught a glimmer of what they meant by open government. No one in Canagrex had been told that their agency would be dissolved. They only heard about it on the night the Economic Statement was made. There had been no consultation or clear discussion as to what the agency had been doing prior to the announcement of its dissolution. That was unfortunate because it was quite clear that in the short five or six months it had been operating, Canagrex had been fairly successful. I remind the House that the start-up costs for an agency such as Canagrex are higher than the regular operating costs. However, even for an expenditure of some $2.6 million in start-up costs, it was reported that Canagrex had already achieved sales worth $16 million and had sales in progress that were worth something over $100 million. However, once a decision has been made to close down an agency, it is hard to generate sales.
Many farm products had no means of being exported as a result of the vacuum created by the dissolution of this agency. Those farmers have no choice but to wait for an exporter to purchase their products. The farmers want to be assured that there is a market for their product, and they cannot conduct a

November 7, 1985
Canagrex Dissolution Act
viable operation if they must wait for an exporter to purchase their products.
Less than 4 per cent of over-all agricultural production consists of products that are not produced on a large-scale basis. This includes virtually hundreds of products. These farmers have no way of amassing their production to make it look attractive to foreign buyers. When the producers of these commodities are scattered throughout the country, the problems of putting that production together become almost insurmountable because these products are a provincial responsibility according to our Constitution. When the production in a particular province is not sufficient to warrant action by the provincial Government to seek markets for that commodity, the alternative for farmers is to combine interprovincially. However, this is not possible under the current law in this country.
The Progressive Conservative Government failed to allow that to happen when it opened up the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act to include the word "tobacco". I had moved a motion that was duly seconded and recorded in the House to permit the Act to be opened up so that producers of red meats, fruits, vegetables and grains could have equal access to that right to organize themselves interprovincially in order to market their products outside the country.
The Government, which is supposed to support the farmers, refuses to allow such authority to be included in the Act. The farmers have had to organize in such a way that a majority of their producers were in favour of such a step before applying for that right. The Government still refused to grant them that right.
The Minister of Agriculture, in presenting his motion to dissolve Canagrex, pointed out that he has been very active and had introduced a great deal of agricultural legislation. He spoke about the hundreds of things that he has claimed to have done since becoming Minister. Subsequently I got a list of what the Minister has claimed to have done as Minister of Agriculture and I began to do some analysis. This Minister of Agriculture has done very little. Most of the one hundred and some items he claims achievements while being Minister were items on which that would have been achieved automatically whether he was Minister of Agriculture or I was Minister of Agriculture, or whether there was no Minister of Agriculture.
Certain programs go on automatically. The Minister kept a score card as each program was triggered. He has boasted of having passed eight or nine agricultural Bills. I have the list before me. They do not do very much to change the way farmers live out in the country. Let me go through the listing to show how innocuous and how little action has been taken in the name of the Government caring and sharing in the agricultural sector.
First let us consider Bill C-4, which was to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. This was the Act to which I just alluded which included the word "tobacco". That was all the effort the Government put into that Bill. The Government
refused it to be in effect for other agricultural products so that farmers would not have to rely on agencies like Canagrex to do their export marketing for them. The door has been slammed on farmers. They cannot take action on their own, and on top of that Canagrex has been closed up. Then we have Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act. We reiterated the power of the Government to form a tripartite agreement for stabilization plans with the provinces and producers who were interested. I say reiterated advisedly because those powers were already in the old Act. The Minister simply wanted some word cleaning up to be certain of having the powers he hoped he had the way the Act was before. A slight revision was made which accomplished nothing more than had been available previously to producers, provincial Governments and the federal Government.
Bill C-29 was an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act. It did not change the amount of money going to farmers one iota. It gave the Government the power to issue an interim payment in advance of when the final payment could be calculated.
As for the Meat Inspection Act, something happened there. The Government decided to reduce the powers of the federal inspectors and to leave some of those powers up to the plants. We have had some offshoots of what can happen as a result of that with the tuna scandal. We have set ourselves up with the passage of that Act to some more instances of ministerial interference and interference at the company level. Some meat normally not considered fit for human consumption could slip through the system because inspectors paid by the plant, under the control of the plant and hired by the plant will not have the backing of the federal civil service.
We had to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. That agency had done nothing and had no employees for 20 years, but the Bill adds to the Minister's tally. He likes to tick off things that happen.
We had an Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act. That moved the date forward another two or three years so that the Act could continue, something that Parliament does every couple of years, after its grandfather clause wears out. We amended also the Advance Payments for Crops Act so that the amount of cash advances could be increased. This was a positive move and it did not take any time in the House. We had an Act to amend the Seeds Act which concluded today. It says we shall have quality in seeds and that we can increase the amount of fines if somebody disobeys the Act.
Last, but not least, but in keeping with the kinds of moves made by this Government on behalf of agriculture, we had an Act to amend the Criminal Code dealing with pari-mutuel betting. It is now possible for someone to go to the racetrack and bet on the Kentucky Derby or other races occurring outside the country. This does not have a great immediate impact to help agriculture, but it is one of the Bills the Minister is using to count the great contribution this Government has made to agriculture.
At the same time, the Minister still has some things he is supposed to be looking after concerning Canagrex. He may
November 7, 1985

have fired all of the staff and told the board that it no longer has a purpose or a function, but Canagrex is still in place, it is still the law of this country and it is important to remember that in terms of what I now have to say. That Act requires the Minister of Agriculture to do certain things upon the receipt of the annual report of the Canagrex Agency. I understand the board of directors had such a meeting on or about September 11. The final report was submitted to the Minister of Agriculture. What is so significant about that, Mr. Speaker? Canagrex had a new provision that was supposed to help provide better scrutiny and control by Parliament. The Canagrex Bill has a clause in it that requires the Minister of Agriculture to table the annual report within 15 sitting days of his receipt of the report. This is a very unusual clause, but it is in keeping with the move toward better parliamentary scrutiny of government agencies and Crown corporations. Once that report is tabled in the House, it is automatically referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I say this is important because the Minister has had that report in his hands far more than the necessary required 15 sitting days.
The Minister has had this report almost two months. He has yet to table the report in the House of Commons according to the law of the land, passed by this House of Commons, approved by the Senate and signed by the Governor General. The Minister has ignored the law. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, he has taken away the right of parliamentarians on the Standing Committee of Agriculture to review that final report, to call witnesses, members of Canagrex or the Minister himself to find out just what has been going on in the agency, what it did in the last few months of its operation and why the Minister decided to do away with it.
It is impossible for us to ask these questions because the Minister refuses to table the report as the Canagrex Act as the law of the land specifies.
Why is the Minister evading the law? It is not because he was not made aware of it. I wrote to him pointing out that he has this responsibility. The letter is dated October 3. I pointed out that he had had the information far in excess of the 15 days the law requires. I asked him to table the report so it could go to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. One of the Minister's assistants responded on October 22. The letter reads:
On behalf of the Honourable John Wise, this will acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 3, 1985 concerning Canagrex.
Please be assured that your letter will be brought to the Minister's attention at the earliest opportunity.
1 am not sure whether the Minister's staff has brought it to his attention. However, I am bringing it to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to the attention of the House. I think it is time the Minister acted. He has had far too long. The action is clear in the Bill. In order for parliamentarians to conduct their business, it is necessary that the Government adhere to its own laws, the laws of the country.
For that reason, we should carefully consider why we are debating this legislation at all, when the Government and some
Canagrex Dissolution Act
Ministers of the Crown are flouting the law, in terms of this particular law, at this moment. It makes a travesty not only of the parliamentary process but of our justice and legal system, when a Minister of the Crown ignores the laws of Canada in such a blatant fashion.


Mr. Sid Fraleigh (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to enter into this debate. 1 happen to enter it as a new Member, carrying no baggage for what I have said in the past. That may allow me to provide a little more common sense perspective than has been applied to it so far.
We should go back in history a little in order to have a full grasp on what is proposed in this particular Bill. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, we had a Minister of Agriculture who was running around the country telling the population that there were great and wondrous markets out there which were just waiting to be tapped, and that all we needed was some super agency which could deal state to state and take advantage of those markets. I assure the House that that is a myth. There are no markets out there which are just waiting to be taken up by putting together some type of agency. There is fierce competition in the world market in whatever commodity is involved.
As has been pointed out, the record of the agency in question over its life was one of minimal impact upon the Canadian agricultural industry. The Hon. Member for Hum-boldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) made mention of its total sales, but $15 million of the $16 million which he quoted was a credit arrangement with Cuba. Farm agencies were bending over backward to give this organization business so that it would become viable. In the end, they had to withdraw that business because of inaction.
I have been involved with a commodity group which was heavily involved in export marketing, not only to the United States, but to the Pacific Rim and to European markets. There is no golden panacea out there. It is hard work, and only hard work will produce results.
Our country has been pretty well served over the past. Prior to 1982, we had the old Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce which worked in conjunction with Agriculture Canada and, in my opinion, did a fairly commendable job. I am not suggesting for a minute that we do not need a strengthening of some of our foreign trade offices, particularly those in the Pacific Rim. However, by and large, we have had good support from the Government agencies which were in place. I have some concerns about the restructuring of the international trade which took place in 1982 under the former Government. I think a monster has been created in lumping together three responsibilities, particularly that of international trade, which deserve to be separated.
A question has been asked about the rationale for disbanding Canagrex. As someone deeply involved in exporting an agricultural product at the time Canagrex was in place, I assure the House that it did nothing for our industry. It was a duplication of a system which already had the wherewithal in

November 7, 1985
Canagrex Dissolution Act
place. Again I reiterate that it should be strengthened; 1 am not suggesting for a minute that it should not be. All we have to do is to look at the record of the organization, and 1 would say that it was rather dismal.
While I am on my feet, I want to say that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has done more for agriculture in one short year, even though the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre seemed to take some exception to it. One item which he held up for ridicule was the tripartite meat stabilization program. He said that the authority was there and all it took was for the Minister to carry through with it. I happen to have been involved for the last 15 years from the point of view of the producer sector in trying to get a tripartite red meat stabilization program into effect, and I know that nothing happened until this Minister managed to get Bill C-25 through the House in June. That carries back 15 years.
While dealing with the red meat sector, I should like to refer to the fact that an Hon. Member opposite held up our meat inspection system to some ridicule, particularly under the changes which were put in place. We have the finest meat inspection system in the world, and that is barring none. Even with the changes which have been put in place, no other country is allowed to ship red meat across borders in volumes comparable with that of Canada, and that is almost entirely due to our inspection system, which is held in the highest esteem in most exporting countries.
At this point 1 will sit down and allow Members opposite to question me on what 1 have said.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member care to offer his opinion as to why the Minister has failed to carry out the letter of the law? Why has the Minister failed to table in the House the final report of Canagrex within 15 days, so that it could be automatically sent to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for us to find out what happened in those last few months and in fact look at the record, which is what he said we should be doing?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lambton-Mid-dlesex (Mr. Fraleigh) on a short answer, please.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not prepared to answer for the Minister. The Minister is quite capable of answering for himself. 1 would suggest that the Hon. Member put that question to him in the House this afternoon.
I have indicated my position. If the Hon. Member has questions to put to me on what I said, I am quite prepared to debate it with him. However, as far as a question which only the Minister could answer is concerned, I fail to see why the Hon. Member would direct it to me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter that is of the utmost importance to the people of Canada. In the "Budget of Disaster" that was presented by the Progressive Conservatives last May 23, the Government announced its intention to cut the heart and soul out of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited by reducing the research and development budget by 50 per cent over five years. This action will result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars to AECL, to the laboratories at Chalk River, and to the Town of Deep River.
Contrary to what the Government says, these cuts will seriously damage the health and safety research programs, programs that have made great contributions in the battle against cancer in our country.
In order to lessen the impact of this ill-advised action, I sought, on August 1 last, a meeting with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney). More than three months have passed and the Minister has not had the courtesy to reply to my request, or even to direct her staff to take this matter seriously by discussing possible dates for a meeting.
I want to tell the Minister that this is a matter that the people of Canada take very seriously and we will not tolerate the arrogant attitude of the Government.


An Hon. Member:: Shame on the Tories.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The people who are affected by the cuts in the budget of AECL deserve a hearing with the Minister: the business community, labour, and the professionals. To continue to ignore them is an insult to Canadians and, indeed, to this Parliament.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, today is the one hundredth anniversary of the driving of the last spike and the beginning of transcontinental rail history in this great country of ours.
I come from a town, Transcona, whose very name is a combination of "Transcontinental" and "Lord Strathcona", the man who drove the last spike.
November 7, 1985

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, to mark this anniversary is also to mark 100 years of corporate greed and exploitation. The CPR has apparently recognized this by trying to outdo itself in this anniversary year with an act of unsurpassed corporate cruelty and miserliness, that being to take away arbitrarily the pass rights of all of their pensioners, driving the last spike into the remaining dignity of all of those who, as the ad so piously sings, "Work the CP railway line." These people are now to be cut off from the fruits of their labour.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as in days of old, and even now, in mine, mill, factory, and across the prairies, from farm kitchen to farm kitchen, let the cry ring out: "God damn the CPR".



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, according to the latest economic indicators, Quebec's economy is continuing its sustained progress in 1985. Retail sales have increased 11 per cent between September 1984 and August 1985. The increase in capital expenditures is expected to continue. We can say that the private sector is responding favourably to the first measures taken by the Mulroney Government.
From January to August, 1985, the value of construction starts increased 23 per cent compared with the same period last year. Thanks to our policies, 74,000 new jobs have been created in Quebec since September 1984.
According to a recent survey conducted by the Canadian Federation for Independent Business, 37 per cent of small- and medium-sized businesses intend to increase their capital spending between now and the end of this year. Furthermore, 26 per cent of these businesses intend to hire staff, and 41 per cent are planning to increase their working capital.
These figures show once again that our economy's performance has improved considerably since a Conservative Government was elected last year. This is a real injection of optimism!
As soon as our various oppositions decide to stress the positive things this Government has done, the economic skies will be even more serene over Canada, and the prophets of doom confounded. I say to the people of Quebec and Canada: Remember the disastrous legacy we were left by the Liberals! Now, we are gradually making things better, on my honour as a Beauceron!



S O. 22 THE ARTS

[Stage Direction]
ABITIBI-TeMISCAMINGUE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, from November 9 to 14, 1985, the most important cultural event in the entire Abitibi-Temiscamingue region will take place in my riding.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, the cities of Rouyn and Noranda will be hosting the 4th International Film Festival of Abitibi-Temiscamingue, an annual event that is getting more and more attention from all over Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote two comments made by well known Quebec journalists at the end of the third festival. Richard Guay of Le Devoir said: This is the most important annual regional film event in Quebec. This is what Minou Petrowski had to say: "I appreciated the efficient way things were organized, and the cordial and considerate attitude of the organizers, something that is entirely absent from other festivals".
Mr. Speaker, this festival has gone far beyond our borders to become a truly national and international event. The Abitibi-Temiscamingue region has opened its doors to the world and revealed the hospitality, warmth and efficiency of our people.
Finally, I would like to congratulate the entire team that works year-round to make this festival a success and express the hope that the Abitibi-Temiscamingue International Film Festival will have a long life.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, according to industry figures, the Canadian shipbuilding industry has its slimmest order book since the start of the Second World War. This can hardly come as news of the Government. Not only once, twice, but five times in the past year the Government has been asked to explain when the all-too-long promised Government position on the Canadian shipbuilding industry would be revealed, and each time a Minister has risen to tell the House that the shipbuilding industry is indeed a top priority and that action would soon come.
If a "top priority" means wasting a year, I wonder what these Ministers do with those issues that they feel are not quite so important.
DRIE has dismissed pleas from industry and labour alike to reinstate a 9 per cent shipbuilding subsidy. We are the only nation that does not support this most basic element of the national economy with some form of assistance.

November 7, 1985
To add insult to injury, we must be the only nation to give this preferential treatment to offshore buyers, who get subsidized financing through the Canada Export Development Corporation. Yet our own Canadian shipowners see their Government assistance eliminated.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, where is the logic in that? The time for talk is over. The Canadian shipbuilding industry and the thousands of workers who depend upon it have been cast adrift by the Government. It is time the Government put both oars in the water and headed the economy in the direction of growth, rather than continue with its present course of going in circles.



SMALL BUSINESS


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently announced that the six-month outlook for Canada indicates further growth in employment and investment for the independent business sector. Nearly 30 per cent of the firms responding forecast that they would increase employment, while only 5 per cent predicted lay-offs.
Moreover, investment plan responses were positive. As many as 42 per cent plan to increase capital investment, while nearly 41 per cent plan to increase working capital, including inventories.
Furthermore, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business noted the significance of the capital gains tax exemption, a measure which was included in the Budget of last May.
In the light of what I have just mentioned, it is obvious that the small business sector in Canada has been encouraged by the capital gains tax exemption, thus leading to a climate of confidence in the small business sector.



NATIONAL SOCCER TEAM-SUPPORT URGED

Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians were extremely proud last September when, for the first time in our history, our national soccer team qualified for the World Cup soccer tournament, to be held next year in Mexico. Since then, however, the national team has been living in a miserable, pitiful state. An article in the Toronto Corriere Canadese newspaper reported that the captain of the team and seven of his colleagues and their families are presently relying solely on unemployment insurance benefits, with no access to sports training funds.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Sergio Marchi: Moreover, part of the team will train in Toronto, while the remainder will train separately in Vancouver, the reason being that there are not enough funds to bring all the players and all the coaches together on one field at one time.
These conditions are undignified and unprofessional, and we are becoming an embarrassment in the eyes of the international sporting community.
The Canadian players and coaches have worked long and hard and have been successful despite government inaction. Other countries fully support their teams, and I believe our Canadian team should be accorded that same respect.
The federal Government can and should help remedy this unfortunate reality. Let us live up to this historic occasion. For the Government to stand idly by and allow its national team to continue under substandard and archaic conditions would not only be irresponsible but would be a sporting and national disgrace.



REMEMBRANCE DAY


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, Remembrance Day is a time to remember. I remember that it was not Canada, Britain, the United States or any of the NATO countries which started World War II; it was Hitler and his Nazis who wanted to conquer the world.
I remember Chamberlain, the appeaser, signing the agreement granting almost all of Hitler's demands, leaving Czechoslovakia defenceless and then returning to England where he announced "Peace in our time", to the applause of the people. There was not applause a few months later when Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia and continued his war to conquer the world.
I remember the Nazi army with the modern weapons of war overwhelming the brave Dutch who tried to defend themselves with the few weapons they had, and the Nazi air force bombing the very daylights out of Amsterdam, killing thousands of men, women and children, and occupying that country.
I remember being in Holland to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands by the Canadians. I saw the gratitude in the thousands of Hollanders who said: "Thank you for freeing us" to the Canadians who died and the Canadians who lived.
I remember the horrors of war. I remember that wars are started by men and nations who want to dominate the world. 1 remember the challenge given to all who love freedom from the graves of those who died to free others.
"Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw the torch . .."
I remember! Je me souviens!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 7, 1985



INTERNATIONAL YOUTH YEAR


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in a year which has been designated by the United Nations as International Youth Year it is fitting that our country join the celebration by taking account of the two primary concerns of young people in our country.
The number one priority, for very understandable reasons, is that of jobs. The creation of jobs is a social, political, economic, and human imperative which ought to be of concern to every Member of the House. Too many young people have been left on the sidelines of our society waiting for a chance to contribute, a chance to fit in, a chance to be a full member of their nation.
The tragedy of unemployment must not become the tragedy of an entire generation of young Canadians. It ought to become a leading priority of Parliament in this year to create the conditions for all men and women in our country, young or old, to be able to get a job if they want one.
[Translation\
Our second priority should be to listen: listen to our young people when they express their views on so many important subjects. For instance, the nuclear responsibility of the two superpowers was never discussed as intelligently and the cause of protecting our forests and lakes never defended with as much vigour.
There are many other examples, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I must inform him that his time has expired.



THE ECONOMY


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, figures released yesterday indicate that for the first time in four years the deficit is going down.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Browes: That is good news for all Canadians. I commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
The Government has taken sound and responsible fiscal action to reduce the deficit because it recognizes the damaging impact large deficits have on interest rates, business investment, and especially on job creation. We on this side of the House understand the importance of fiscal responsibility and proper management of tax dollars.
In 1985 Nobel Prize winner Franco Modigliani, a highly respected Keynesian economist, wrote:
In reaching levels unprecedented in peacetime, the deficit has become a serious threat to the well-being of younger and future generations.
Oral Questions
That comment was in reference to the American deficit which, on a per capita basis, is lower than our own.
Progressive Conservatives believe that it is irresponsible and unfair to place the burden of increasing deficits on the backs of our children. That is why we recognize today's news as welcome relief for tomorrow's generation.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Conservative Government has tabled a Bill aimed at reducing family allowances by 3 per cent. The Government's justification for these cuts is that we must reduce the deficit.
How can the Conservatives claim there is no money for our children, when they are giving millions and billions to the rich people in this country?
They say there is no money for our children, but they could find one billion dollars for bankrupt banks. There is no money for our children, but they can find one billion dollars for Dome Petroleum. No money for our children, but they can find $64,000 to pay for a trip by the Minister of State (Transport) (Mrs. Blais-Grenier).
What a staggering contrast, Mr. Speaker! There is a lot of money for the rich and for the privileged in our society, but our children only get de-indexation of family allowances.
The Progressive Conservative Party in 1985 is the same party led by R. B. Bennett in the Thirties. The Progressive Conservative Party remains a party for the rich. The Progressive Conservative Party and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) have broken their election promises, Mr. Speaker.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday in Edmonton in response to questions affecting our trade negotiations with the United States he was reported to have said: "What is there to be secret about?" I agree with that. Why has his Government adopted a deliberate and manipulative secret strategy in advancing the negotiations with the United States? Why does he not come clean and tell Canadians what

November 7, 1985
Oral Questions
is on the table for negotiation and what is not? Just what is negotiable and what is not?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition asks why we have adopted the strategy which he has ascribed to us. The answer is that we have not.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS
John Napier Turner: In
that case, Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Government has not revealed the parameters of these negotiations.
I have another question for the Prime Minister. If there is nothing secret about these negotiations, does the Prime Minister intend to provide Canadians with a cost-benefit analysis, so they can judge for themselves which Canadian industries and communities will benefit from these negotiations with the United States and which may be at a disadvantage?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, once negotiations are underway, I assume that negotiators acting on behalf of the Canadian Government will want to advise Canadians, at the appropriate time, of the reasons behind the various positions being taken.
There is an advisory committee on the private sector, in every area where serious preparatory work is being done, and there will certainly be announcements very shortly in connection with this question.
What we are looking for, if, as and when feasible, and since nine out of ten provinces and a considerable part of the population are in favour, is a dialogue with the Americans to find out whether we can improve our trade exchanges and obtain more jobs and more secure markets for Canadians in the future.


REQUEST THAT COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS BE TABLED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, at this point all we have from the Prime Minister and his Government are vague generalizations as to what the potential benefits might be from a free trade arrangement with the United States. The advisory committee to which the Prime Minister refers has not been completely set up. The provinces have not been adequately consulted. His reference to nine out of ten provinces being in favour will probably not bear analysis when each province looks at the cost benefits province by province.
For the scrutiny of Parliament, will the Prime Minister table a cost benefit analysis so that Members of the House and the
joint committee which reviewed free trade during the summer can review the industries which will benefit and those which will be hurt, the jobs which will be made available and the jobs which will be lost? Will he do this so that Canadians can begin to make an intelligent value judgment on the state and direction of these negotiations?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, one of the most thorough of the analyses done so far on the subject was done by the Hon. Donald Macdonald, Chairman of the Royal Commission appointed by a previous Government. Therefore, its impartiality and its objectivity vis-a-vis this Government would be, I think, fully appreciated. Mr. Macdonald and his colleagues recently conducted the most extensive research into this area of which I am aware. They came down very strongly in asking the Canadian Government to examine this possibility very carefully. If we examine it carefully, and we shall, it will be with a view to procuring more jobs for Canadians, to attempting to secure longer term and more secure access to American markets, and to bringing in a new degree of prosperity and security to Canada while enhancing our sovereignty at all times.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CO-OPERATION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question to direct to the Prime Minister related to the discussions with the United States. He has just said that it will be very important for there to be co-operation with the provinces. There is now a report from the Ontario Legislature that recommends substantial exemptions for certain industries such as the auto, agricultural and cultural industries. There has also been a major representation by the Government of Manitoba and the Government of Saskatchewan requesting that there be exemptions. In the spirit of that federal-provincial co-operation which the Prime Minister wants to have, is he now prepared to agree with the provincial representations that certain industries such as agriculture, culture, and the auto industries can be exempted from those negotiations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be discussing this matter and others in some detail with the First Ministers in Halifax at the end of the month. No doubt some of them will want to raise matters such as the ones raised by my hon. friend. Pursuant thereto, I will report to the House.


PRIME MINISTER'S DISCUSSION WITH ALBERTA PREMIER
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already had the opportunity to have a discussion with the Premier of Alberta. 1 understand that they met yesterday. Considering the importance of the provinces being in agreement with putting on the bargaining table matters under their own jurisdictions, such as marketing boards, agricultural subsidies and support programs, did the
November 7, 1985

Prime Minister raise that matter with the Premier of Alberta? Is the Premier of Alberta in agreement with putting on the bargaining table and having negotiated those matters that fall under the jurisdiction of his province?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what the Premier of Alberta told me in general terms was what a delight it was for Albertans to deal with a federal Government that was not interested in savaging the interests of western Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE AUDITOR GENERAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On December 4 last, in a reply to a question put by me about the powers of the Auditor General, the Prime Minister said that when there was " . .. a collision between the rights of Parliament and certain privileges of the executive. In my judgment, in that kind of confrontation, Parliament should always prevail". Last Friday, as the Prime Minister, will know, Mr. Justice Jerome rendered a historic decision on this question using almost precisely the same words as the Prime Minister but in this instance giving them the force of law. He said the following about the tradition of cabinet confidentiality conflicting with the Auditor General's powers: "where they are in conflict, the Auditor General's right of access must prevail". Does the Prime Minister stand by what he said last December? Will he now give the Auditor General that which is his due?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, that matter is being currently reviewed. It is an important constitutional issue that is under review. The decision will certainly be in the best interests of all parliamentarians and the Government.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S POWERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I hope what is not to be involved is the Prime Minister reviewing another sacred trust. He made this commitment pretty clearly last fall.
My supplementary question pertains to the PCO. The Prime Minister will be aware that Mr. Ward Elcock, the acting legal counsel in the PCO, the same man who acted as counsel for Energy, Mines and Resources in 1981, pointed out regarding the same Petro-Canada case that it is possible to, in his words, hide in regulations certain information. Considering the possibility of hiding material, on instructions from the executive branch, no doubt within traditional powers, which is precisely what the Auditor General was concerned about, and if we believe in open Government, does the Prime Minister not now agree that we ought to give the Auditor General the powers
Oral Questions
that the Prime Minister promised he would give him during last year's election campaign, and in the House last December?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not accept any of the premises in the hon. gentleman's question. However, I can assure him that, in so far as it is within our power, we are more than anxious to see completely exposed the whole circumstances surrounding the acquisition of Petrofina by Petro-Canada. There is another convention, of the Constitution that has provided a problem in that connection because the papers involved are those that exist as a result of the administration of former Prime Minister Trudeau who, as of yet, has not seen fit to give us consent to release any of those papers. These are matters that are all being examined now.
I would say to the Hon. Member that there are two points at issue. One is Petro-Canada's acquisition of Petrofina, and we are determined that all information regarding that should be given to the public. The second issue is a very important constitutional question involving cabinet Government collective responsibility, and that has to be considered as well.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary question.


AGREEMENT MADE WITH FORMER PRIME MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister is clearly not prepared to answer about his responsibility and commitments, I would ask the Minister of Justice if he is now saying that it would be necessary to get permission from former Prime Minister Trudeau to provide the documents that a Justice of the Federal Court indicated ought to be provided by law.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that there was an agreement entered into during the brief tenure of the former Prime Minister, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, with former Prime Minister Trudeau to the effect that the cabinet confidences and documents of that administration would be sealed and not gone into by successors. Whether or not it is a legal obligation, it is certainly a moral obligation that one must consider very carefully. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could tell the House whether the NDP Government of Manitoba or the former NDP Government of Saskatchewan-


John Edward Broadbent: The legal judgment was about your Government.


John Carnell Crosbie: Did they give to their Auditors General and the public all their cabinet confidences? Of course they did not. It is time for my hon. friend to cease being holier than thou.

November 7, 1985
Oral Questions FISHERIES


FACTORY FREEZER TRAWLER LICENCE APPLICATION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Fisheries, the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House if he has arrived at a decision concerning an application by National Sea Products Limited to operate a factory freezer trawler on the East Coast of Canada, an application opposed by every fisherman and fish plant worker in the Province of Newfoundland?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, when a decision is made it will be made at the appropriate time and announced in the appropriate fashion.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, since the majority of this fish will come from Area 2J3KL, which is the east coast and north-east coast of Newfoundland, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House how the Government can have the audacity even to consider this proposal which is opposed by the Province of Newfoundland? Is this co-operative federalism?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the factors inherent in coming to any such decision which, as I said a moment ago will be announced, if it is announced, at an appropriate time and in an appropriate fashion, will all be taken into consideration.


STANDING COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Acting Minister of Fisheries. He will know that every segment of Atlantic Canada is opposed to the factory freezer technology, and he will know that the Government's case in the arbitration with France over stationing factory freezer trawlers in St. Pierre and Miquelon will be destroyed if it is approved. Finally, it is a slap in the face to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what kind of mix of political stupidity and contempt would lead the Government to approve this application before the Standing Committee has had a chance to hold its hearings on November 21?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the hon. gentleman has made three comments in the preamble to his question, two of which are utterly false and one of which is doubtful, in the best possible interpretation.


EFFECT OF LICENSING FACTORY FREEZER TRAWLER
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister agree that if he approves the permit for National Sea to operate a factory freezer trawler off Atlantic Canada, he will jeopardize our position on free trade in the fishery with the U.S.? Will he also admit that it runs the risk of destroying rural communities throughout Atlantic Canada?


Erik Nielsen: Not at all, Sir.


COMMITTEE HEARINGS-REQUEST THAT DECISION BE POSTPONED
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Acting Minister of Fisheries. Is he aware that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry has decided to invite on November 21 the Governments of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, the major fishermen's union in those provinces, Fisheries Products International and National Sea, to appear on the question of factory freezer trawlers? That decision was taken by all three Parties, including his own Parliamentary Secretary. Will the Minister give this House, and in particular the standing committee, a commitment that no decision will be taken on factory freezer trawlers and the application by National Sea until the hearings have been held and the committee reports with our advice to the Ministers? Will he do that?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the broadest possible consultation has already taken place with provincial Governments, the Council of Atlantic Fisheries Ministers, the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee, unions, and the newly formed Atlantic Regional Council. Full discussions and consultations have taken place since this matter first arose, I believe last June.


GOVERNMENT'S APPROACH TO COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is saying that he is going to ignore the standing committee. 1 remind him that the committee has heard 107 witnesses in the last 12 days, over 100 of whom oppose factory freezer trawlers. I ask him again, in the spirit of reform put forward by the McGrath Committee, to respect the standing committee, allow these hearings to be held, and await our advice before a decision is made. Will he do that?


Erik Nielsen: All I can say. Sir, given the initiative by the Government, and the excellent work done by the Hon. Member for St. John's East, is that this Government, refreshingly, has a heck of a lot more respect-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Will you wait?
November 7, 1985


Erik Nielsen: -for the committee system and standing committees in this House than was ever displayed by the former Government.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Will you wait?


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I am sure he is aware that almost everyone now agrees that fundamental changes to the regulatory and supervisory system which governs our financial institutions must be made, although I am not certain where the Liberals stand on this particular issue.


Mr. Gauthier:: Don't worry about us; get your own act together.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Will the Minister tell the people of Canada that the Government will act immediately on implementation of a regulatory system as proposed by the finance committee?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the report of the standing committee was just tabled yesterday. I have read in a preliminary way their comments on the question of regulatory reform. I think the committee agrees, as do we in this Government, that it is necessary to strengthen the regulatory system. As soon as we won the election we started on a number of steps relating to the appointment of the Wyman Commission, the Green Paper set out by my colleague, the Minister of State, and which was followed through with an announcement concerning actions she was proposing for the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to strengthen its powers. From the time we took office we have moved quickly to strengthen the regulatory system, and we are going to continue in that direction.


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in light of recent results we have a long way to go, and that is why I am urging the Minister to take immediate action to send a very definite signal that the Government is taking action on this critical matter.
1 would like the Minister to assure the people of Canada, particularly those in areas where small regional financial institutions are really struggling to survive, that the Government will not stand idly by and will follow at least some of the recommendations of the committee report so that banks like Citibank, Barclays Bank or the Bank of Tokyo cannot come up and gobble up some of the small regional financial institutions which are struggling to survive?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question.
Oral Questions
Obviously regional banking is of great interest to this Government, as we have indicated, and our commitment has been on record for a long time. I might also say that the report from the committee is not a quick read. There are a number of proposals concerning foreign ownership, among other things, which we will be examining in a great deal of detail before we come out with our final suggestions.


FISHERIES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who is quite concerned with process. Since the Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has refused to give us an undertaking concerning the fishery committee hearings on November 21 when in fact the all-Party resolution was moved by the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary, does the Prime Minister not think it is both irresponsible and in breach of the reforms brought in by the McGrath Committee not to hear the evidence of the two provinces and various interested groups before any decision is made?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, even if the inferential fears of the Hon. Member were to assume proportions of any reality at all, he completely overlooks the fact that extensive consultations have already taken place with the Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Nova Scotia, as well as other provincial Governments in Atlantic Canada.


COMMITTEE HEARINGS IN ATLANTIC CANADA
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of dollars have been spent in the last 12 days by this committee travelling through Atlantic Canada, hearing in excess of 100 briefs which said no to factory freezer trawlers. Is the Minister not making a mockery of the parliamentary process by not waiting until November 21 to hear these important parties make their case here in Ottawa? Is this not mockery of Parliament?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: No, sir, not in my view. However, I can tell the hon. gentleman-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I suppose Blais-Grenier's travels are more important.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
8454

November 7, 1985
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: I can, however, tell the hon. gentleman that in my opinion he breaches the rules of this House when he refers to evidence submitted to that committee which, if in fact it was submitted as he described it, and I do not for a moment-


David Charles Dingwall: Don't mislead the House. You have a habit of doing that.


Erik Nielsen: -take for a fact his description of it-the hon. gentleman asks me not to mislead the House. I suggest-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: -that he and his colleagues should follow that advice more carefully themselves.


David Charles Dingwall: Don't mislead the House.


John Carnell Crosbie: Simmer down, dingbat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I gave his office notice of this question because I did not think he was aware of the decision his Department made. Yesterday we learned that his Department will be terminating the services of its chaplains and that it intends to provide this service on a contract basis. Would the Minister, who is a veteran himself, not agree that the relationship between veterans and chaplains is a very special one which cannot be provided by contracting out services the way you would a dental program or any other kind of program? Would the Minister not agree that that is the case, and agree to rescind that decision?


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The
short answer to that question, of course, is no, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate so much that the Hon. Member gave my office notice of this question. It is an important and very serious one and deserves a serious answer. I have written out the answer which I will give him, because I want no mistake made in the understanding of it.
Veterans Affairs has been steadily transferring veterans' hospitals and nursing homes to the provinces for many years now. Gradually, over the years, we have been moving toward contracting chaplains' services. In conformity with this longstanding policy, all chaplains will soon be employed on a contract basis.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Dial-a-prayer.


George Harris Hees: I am pleased to assure our chaplains that those who will be employed on a contract basis will receive the same
pay and hours of work as they are now receiving. I would like to assure the House that chaplain service to our veterans will not, in any way, be diminished.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Benjamin:: But will it be sacred?


DEPARTMENTAL POLICY
Neil Young: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. Would he not agree that if his Department is going to continue this service, albeit on a contract basis, it would be much easier on the veterans and would ease any concerns that they may have about that relationship, simply to continue to have the chaplains in the employ of Veterans Affairs?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It's the same money, the same pay.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, we are simply acting in conformity with the policy we have steadily been moving toward for many years now in this regard so that there will be a consistent policy in the Department with regard to chaplain services. As I said, the chaplains will be completely protected. They will be receiving the same pay, working the same hours, and giving the same service.


Ian Deans: Why are you doing it?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why bother?


George Harris Hees: Our veterans will, in every way, receive the same service from our chaplains. It is simply that we believe and are firmly convinced that doing the work this way is a more efficient and effective way of providing chaplains' services than that formerly employed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You said there'd be no change, so why change it?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. A few days ago the Minister met with the Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Edward Meese, and, according to news reports, discussed, among other things, the extradition of Charles Ng and Joseph Kindler. Could the Minister tell us if he has now received a request for the extradition of Charles Ng, and can he assure Canadians that Joseph Kindler will be home in time for Christmas?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 did meet with Attorney General Meese on Monday and among the matters we discussed were the two matters the hon. gentleman mentioned. With respect to Charles Ng, there has been no request as yet
November 7, 1985

received from the United States, or any State thereof, for his extradition, and he is commited to go to trial on certain charges in Alberta at the present time in any event.
With respect to Mr. Kindler, his solicitors have been given until November 15 to submit a written brief outlining their reasons why certain conditions should be requested in connection with any extradition back to the United States of America. That has not yet been received. I will also likely give them an oral hearing following that, and then decide the matter. I certainly think it will be decided before the middle of December.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister's Department received a sample of the St. Clair River toxic waste patch from the Great Lakes Institute at the University of Windsor in August, 1984. He told the House yesterday that it took until August of 1985 for an analysis of that sample to be completed and a dangerous level of dioxin to be disclosed. Why did it take the Minister's Department a year to complete this analysis and disclose the dioxin? Why did it not show a greater sense of urgency with regard to this important matter involving the health and safety of millions of Canadians?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that a sample was taken in August, 1984, but it was just one of many hundreds, indeed thousands, of samples taken by my Department throughout the Great Lakes area. We were not looking, in particular, for dioxin, or even for hazardous chemicals. Indeed, the sample was revealed almost by accident. When we discovered a year later that, in fact, hazardous chemicals were contained in the substance in question, we acted promptly and expeditiously by seeking further information.


LEAKAGE OF TOXIC CHEMICAL WASTES
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the sample was taken pursuant to a contract with his Department to look for hazardous chemicals in the St. Clair River. In any event, Mr. Speaker, today an official of the Minister's Department said that the leakage of toxic chemical wastes in the St. Clair river "could create the biggest hazardous waste problem in North America". Will the Minister confirm now that he and his Government will take immediate measures to clean up the toxic waste problem in the St. Clair River with an even greater priority than he has announced for the Niagara River, in order that the people in the St. Clair River area and downstream can get the necessary reassurance that this matter will be dealt with immediately and that their health and safety will be protected?
Oral Questions


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had been in the House, or at least paying attention, in the past week, he would know that my Department is acting in just the way he is recommending. I will say, however, that the official who was widely quoted in the media this morning, and to whom the Hon. Member has now made reference, was not speaking with the authority of his political or bureaucratic superiors. In an effort to be forthcoming and open with the media he engaged in some very unhelpful and, as it turned out, unfounded speculation. My Department dissociates itself from his statements and I suggest that the Hon. Member dissociate his question from them, too.


EDUCATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State. Report after report has documented the deterioration of Canada's college and university system in which financial constraints have increasingly limited quality and accessibility for those in greatest need. Yet there is no sign of a new financing agreement with the provincial Ministers responsible for post-secondary education. Has not the Minister of Finance, by cutting the transfer payment escalator, pulled the rug out from under the Secretary of State in his efforts to negotiate a new postsecondary funding agreement with the provinces?
(Translation]


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Hon. Member, as I informed him several times before, that the Department of Finance has made no cuts but simply reduced the increase to be granted to the provinces. Again, I may remind the Hon. Member that the provinces are responsible for deciding how the money is spent, and that is what they are going to do. I also said that we would soon be meeting with the provincial Ministers of Education. We are going to try to assess the various possibilities we have, and I think that considering the meetings I have had with presidents of universities, professors and with the students' association this evening, that we will be able to find a solution.


DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, will this understanding curtail the diversion of federal funds to the provinces for uses other than post-secondary funding, will it stop the cut in provincial funding, and will there be some change in transfer payments that will ensure that the university and college system is not faced with continuing decreases in funding as it has been for nearly a decade now?

November 7, 1985
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we are also sensitive to the specific problems of our Canadian universities. Now, I may remind the House again that the responsibility for transferring the funds lies with the provinces. We are open to suggestions. We did not sign the unconditional agreement of 1977. That was done by the previous Government. If we could find a way, and I am confident that I will, to increase the resources allocated to universities and colleges, we shall certainly do so, but always within the framework of the constitutional agreements under which the provinces are responsible for education.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Obviously I want to thank you very much for recognizing me on this very interesting day, which is one day from tomorrow!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: 1 sent around these little white carnations which were neutral-not red or blue, but white-and I am sorry that the three on the opposite side, Gaston, Warren, and Len, are not wearing them. The memo said: "This bud's for you. '65-'85".
My question, Mr. Speaker, is very serious, and I have a supplementary, depending on the answer. It is directed to the President of the Treasury Board who has a vicarious knowledge of the question. I laud him for the commendable work on public service pension reform but will he assure the House that, regardless of public service pension reform, the superannuates, those who are now retired, will not be adversely affected in any negotiations he concludes?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the Hon. Member for giving me notice that he would ask me the question. We have been working for several months on the question of pension reform and I share his concern and the concern of superannuates.
I repeat what I have said on a number of occasions. He can rest assured that superannuates will be treated in a fair and equitable manner and with all due respect to the commitments of this Party and the Government. We are trying to put the plan on a sound financial basis. No changes will be proposed to Cabinet without full consultation with representatives of all the parties involved.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ELECTION COMMITMENT
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in the continuing discussions and negotiations, I hope and know that the President of the Treasury Board will follow the policy that was enunciated by our Party in the last election, which
says:
While our Party recognizes the need to negotiate changes to arrangements with current employees, we are determined that these must not affect the benefits for current superannuates.
Will he follow that provision?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has quoted the commitments of this Party and the Government accurately. I believe that I said in my previous answer that whatever changes are brought to the plan will be fully in line with the commitments of this Party and the Government. I do not think I can be any clearer.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, what a difference 20 years makes. A welcome difference.


David Charles Dingwall: That Nowlan is a good man.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. He has tried to justify the limousine in Paris. He has tried to justify the limousine in Sweden. Can he justify why, in London last December, for a one-day meeting, the former Minister of the Environment, the current Minister of State for Transport, quite literally chalked up 125 miles in limousine travel at a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of over $400?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker. 1 am advised that the then Minister of the Environment was in London representing her Department and the Government of Canada at meetings of the Environment Ministers of the seven so-called summit countries. She used the occasion of being in London to accept invitations to tour a number of environment-related facilities in the Greater London area. In that connection, she incurred the expenses that the Hon. Member referred to in her question.


INVOICED ITEMS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, according to the invoices which were filed by Prestoncrest Limited
November 7, 1985

Chauffeur Services in London, the bills for 137 pounds sterling and 126 pounds sterling included a pick up of the Minister at the hotel, sight-seeing around London, a trip to the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is there a supplementary question?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Since the invoices show quite clearly that both days were occupied in a sight-seeing tour of London, does the Minister not believe that the former Minister should reimburse the taxpayers for this waste of taxpayers' money?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Well, Mr. Speaker, before asking a question like that which is certainly insulting, if not slanderous-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Just read the invoices.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -the Hon. Member should have satisfied herself that it is not true that the Minister toured environment-related plants, as I indicated a moment ago. Does she have information that would establish that what I have said is incorrect? If so, maybe she should provide it to the House.


AUDITOR GENERAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Earlier in Question Period the Minister made an extraordinary statement. He said that he had to consider what Justice Jerome had to say about access to information by the Auditor General and that he also had to consider the confidentiality of former Prime Minister Trudeau's documents in the circumstances.
Is he not aware that Justice Jerome dealt specifically with that question about Mr. Trudeau's papers and said in the last sentence of his judgment:
-the refusal of access was unjustified then and therefore remains unjustified now.
That being the case, that being the law, will the Minister provide the documents?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, whether or not that is the law is not yet quite as clear as the Hon. Member seems to imagine. As I said to him in my answer earlier, there are two questions: there is a legal question and there is a moral question. There is the fact that the former Prime Minister, who is now Leader of the Opposition, made a commitment to his predecessor with respect to the papers of that administration, and his predecessor made a commitment to Mr. Clark, who made one to Mr. Trudeau-


John Edward Broadbent: It is illegal.
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: -who made one to Mr. Diefenbaker. These are constitutional conventions upon which the governance of the British system rests. Therefore, we are not as sanguine as the Hon. Leader of the NDP who has never been in government and never had to observe any commitments like this before.


REQUEST THAT DOCUMENTS BE PRODUCED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, the Minister is revealing considerable ignorance of the judgment. The Justice considered the conventions the Minister is talking about. In his judgment about those conventions, he said that the Auditor General's right superseded them. Given that fact, why does the Minister not obey the laws interpreted by the Justice and give the documents that he ought to, now?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's question is premature. We are going to do everything in our power to see that the full details of the Petro-Canada-Petrofina operation are given to the public. We want that, but because we are scrupulous about the convention and about agreements entered into with previous administrations, we are having some difficulty. However, we intend to get that red herring out of the way and then deal with the main question, which is the question of responsible cabinet Government and parliamentary democracy.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Once again there is a threat of a pre-Christmas strike. I believe that this threat shows the union's insensitivity to their customers, who are all Canadians. If they are really looking for support, I submit that they are choosing the worst time to do so.
Since many Canadians consider postal delivery an essential service and, accordingly, no strikes should be permitted, will the Minister seriously consider this option in his deliberations over the next few weeks?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post Corporation is currently negotiating and every effort is being made to reach an agreement.
The Corporation has faced this situation in the recent past and has managed to negotiate settlements at the bargaining table without any work stoppage. We are optimistic that this will occur again.

November 7, 1985
Business of the House
Regarding the other committees that will have to report to us, we will have to see by their reports whether this question is dealt with.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, November 6, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
One of the petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honor to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-5, an Act to provide for the creation by amalgamation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, could the Government House Leader tell us what business he proposes for tomorrow and then for the week of November 19?
In addition, could he give us an outline of the business he proposes for the five weeks remaining to the Christmas adjournment?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will respond as best I can with respect to the next two or three weeks, and I will try to address at the end of my remarks some of the hopes I have with respect to legislation that might be passed before Christmas.
Before that let me say that I am pleased to see the progress made in the House today.
At the present time we are dealing with Bill C-42. If that debate concludes, the next item of business I will call is Bill C-66, which deals with the reorganization of the Canada Development Corporation. A back-up to that piece of legislation will be Bill C-55, which contains amendments to the Immigration Act.
Tomorrow, as I previously announced, will be the second allotted day in the current supply period.
Next week, as Hon. Members will appreciate, the House will be in its mid-term recess in observance of Remembrance
Day. I anticipate that tomorrow, in the usual tradition, at 11 a.m., in anticipation of Novermber 11, representatives of each Party will make statements in honour of those who served with such distinction on behalf of our country in the great wars.
Upon return to the House on November 18, our first priority will be to complete the debate at second reading stage on Bill C-62, which is the Bill to bring a new and progressive degree of employment equity to Canadians.
Following Bill C-62, we will return to consideration of second reading stage of Bill C-82, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act. Back-up legislation to Bill C-82 will be Bills C-46, C-47 and C-48 relating to the divorce law. These are currently at the report stage, as the Hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition will appreciate.
As can be expected, and as is the usual case, we will monitor the progress being made with respect to legislation that has been announced.
As the House Leader for the Official Opposition has mentioned, there are several Bills on the Order Paper and others coming out of committee which will be brought forward at the earliest possible date, such as Bill C-45, subject to some consultation with opposition Parties. Bill C-45 relates to parliamentary relations for employees of the House of Commons. I hope to deal with that Bill in a manner which will be acceptable in the best interests of the employees of the House of Commons.
We do have other Bills which I suppose I can simply say to the House Leader for the Official Opposition that Canadians expect us to bring forward and deal with expeditiously. Essentially they are pieces of legislation flowing from the Budget.
As the Hon. Opposition House Leader will know, it has been the practice of previous administrations to allow Bills flowing out of budgets to remain unpassed and undealt with for two to three years after a Budget has been brought down. This causes a great degree of uncertainty and some considerable dissatisfaction on the part of those who are trying to plan their affairs and deal with their tax returns. In a sense of fairness to the people of Canada we should try to have an adequate, thorough but nonetheless expeditious treatment of legislation flowing from the Budget. It will be my intention to give priority to those pieces of legislation, which 1 can assure Hon. Members will be introduced at an early date following our return.
There are important pieces of legislation, Mr. Speaker. Since the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition has asked me to cover the period until Christmas, I am only too happy to do so-


Ian Deans: He did not mean for you to speak until Christmas.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As soon as I give Hon. Members the good news, they do not want to listen to me, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: You could send me a letter.
November 7, 1985


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I can tell the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition that there is legislation, particularly in the area of social justice and law and order, Solicitor General Bills, and Bills on mandatory supervision. People are asking why those particular pieces of legislation, which will offer some form of protection for the average citizen, have not been passed by the House of Commons.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You haven't called them.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: All those pieces of legislation, plus the number of other attractive matters that will be brought forward, will give us a rich legislative agenda. 1 hope Members of Parliament will pass all items before Christmas.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And a Merry Christmas to you too!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to the House for asking a question that brought forth such an empty and meaningless response.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I do not know whether it was meaningless or not, Mr. Speaker. I thought the question was a little empty myself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: In bringing forward all this wonderful legislation, would the Government House Leader find some time for a debate on the proposed reforms of the House, bearing in mind that that ought to take place before the Christmas recess to give Members an opportunity to express their views on the new package?
Second, in scheduling House business, would the House Leader also remember to arrange some time for a debate with regard to the two reforms that he tabled earlier this week so that those matters can be dealt with by Members of the House since they affect each and every Member?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very valid question with respect to the reform of the House. This is a major step forward and one which will be dealt with a good deal of support, I am sure, throughout the House. It is a positive response to an all-Party committee, which indicates that we should make very good progress.
As the Hon. Member will appreciate, I have been carrying on discussions with the House Leaders opposite with the idea of having their suggestions and input. I hope to have a very attractive package ready for December, which we will bring to the House for debate.
I will bring forward one item with respect to the registry of foreign travel at an appropriate time after I have first discussed the matter with opposition House Leaders.
With respect to the reference to the standing committee for study of other items which might be included in a registry, 1 want to discuss that matter. It would seem to me in the best interests of the committee and the whole process that if we got
Business of the House
that into committee quickly, it would allow members on the Management and Members' Services Committee to give it a thorough examination so they could bring down their report by the end of the year. When we can see that report, there will be an opportunity to discuss the final response of the Government with respect to those recommendations.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on that same question. Most of us in the House remember that the last time we talked about reform in the Chamber was last June 28, at about one o'clock in the morning. 1 ask the President of the Privy Council-and 1 think most of us would appreciate it-to come in a little earlier with the reform package this time than was the case the last time, so that we can substantially address it in a manner that we all understand.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member pointed out, the discussion we had with regard to the first report of the committee took place at the end of June. That did not occur without very substantial prior discussions with the House Leaders of the opposition Parties. 1 would have liked to address all Hon. Members of the Opposition personally and to give them the benefit of my sage advice on these matters, but that was not possible, and I had to deal through their House Leaders.
In any event, the Hon. Member can rest assured that we are discussing the matter now. I am sure his House Leader is advising his caucus. In December 1 will be coming forward with this very important initiative. There will be an opportunity for Hon. Members to participate in the debate. I would be very interested in hearing their positions.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Government House Leader not think it important that Hon. Members have a chance to debate this matter and put their views on the record before the package about which he is talking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was reluctant to accept even the earlier question. I think the representations are becoming ones which should be put through the House Leaders for conversation at House Leaders' meetings. The practice here has been to allow House business questions about matters of agenda and scheduling for the next week. This is moving quite a long way away from that, I would suggest, even though Hon. Members know that I, too, believe the subject is important.

November 7, 1985
Tabling of Documents



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the final report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured depositors, in both official languages.


STRIKING COMMITTEE-ELEVENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, after long and arduous discussion among all three Parties and final agreement, I have the honour to table the eleventh report of the Striking Committee, in both official languages.


CRIMINAL CODE (PROSTITUTION)-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-49, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution), with one amendment, in both official languages.


LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION-FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, concerning the document referred to the committee entitled Refugee Determination in Canada.
In accordance with Standing Order 70(16), I request that the Government make a comprehensive response to the fifth report.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


TABLING OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO AIDS
Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure last week of meeting with the members of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in an information session on AIDS. At that time I referred to a summary of what was currently being done by my Department to deal with this disease.
Therefore, I am pleased today to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 47(2), to table a document entitled The Federal Government's Response to AIDS, in both official languages.


RAILWAYS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House today, this seventh day of November, 1985, on the 100th anniversary of the driving of the last spike at Craigellachie, British Columbia.
That historic event, which occurred at 9.22 a.m., was truly one of the most important moments in Canada's history. With the final drive of a hammer, Canada emerged as a united country from coast to coast. A ribbon of steel brought us together as a nation. It gave meaning and substance to the word "Canada". Completion of the transcontinental railway realized our national dream. It serves as a monument and testimony to the spirit, conviction and determination of our forebears.
The sheer act of pushing the iron rail across this land, through muskeg and mountain, over river and plain, stands as a symbol of Canada and the Canadian spirit. That desire to build, to work the vast reaches of Canada, remains a vital element of our national character. The last spike resonates in our imagination and national identity. While it was the end of an epic task, it also marked the beginning of many new and exciting ventures, serving as a springboard for Canada's future.
For the next 100 years, our railways and our transportation system would be instrumental in Canada's economic and social development. The system gave us a base, a link on which to take hold and grow. Now we stand on the verge of a new era in our nation's history. As we look to that future, we again depend on our transportation system to provide the enterprise, innovation and excellence which helped to build our great nation.
Today, just as a century ago, we recognize the importance of transportation to Canada's future and the need to respond with equal vision and spirit to the challenge of building a foundation for national development. To this end, the Government is committed to developing a new legislative framework for transportation to lead us into the 21st century.
Our goal is to develop a transportation system which contributes to the competitiveness of our commerce, a dynamic and energetic system serving new demands. To do so, we must adopt new technology and fresh innovations to provide a wider range of services. We are world leaders in transportation technology, and we must build upon that strength.
We are confident that in a new environment the transportation community will respond to the challenge. Our framework, as outlined in Freedom to Move, encourages the competitive
November 7, 1985

spirit and energy of Canadians to meet our transportation needs.
One hundred years ago, the driving of the last spike helped make our national dream a reality. The spirit of that national dream is alive in Canada today. We are a nation of builders; we take pride in having forged a country out of the rock and soil of our land. The challenges ahead are great; together we can conquer them with the boldness, vision and imagination which made this land a nation.
In conclusion, on this historic day I want to extend sincere congratulations to Canadian Pacific, its management and to all its employees across Canada, whose spirit, dedication and enthusiasm are an inspiration to us all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, November 7, 1885, was a red letter day in Canada's history, when the CPR train travelled from coast to coast for the first time. Canadian Press reporter David Gersovitz commemorated this event in a very interesting article on the Canadian Pacific.
Ever since Canadian Pacific completed its first transcontinental railroad link, it has played and has continued to play a major role in the economic development of our country. Since that day 100 years ago, Canada's expansion has been impressive. The prosperity we have in this country would certainly not extend to all its regions without the major communication links provided at the beginning of the century by the railroad.
Interestingly, and I quote David Gersovitz;
In Canada, however, this project was essential-
-that is, building a railroad that would connect Canada from coast to coast was absolutely-
-essential to this country's development, something which could not become a reality without a transcontinental railroad link. Those who wanted a united Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific claimed that a railroad line cutting across the entire continent, across the formidable Canadian shield, would keep the West from being swallowed up by the United States.
It is a fact that to develop what we know today as Canada's five main regions, it was necessary to cross that formidable obstacle, the Rocky Mountains, and to reach the Pacific. It is thanks to the pioneer spirit and the enterprise of Canadian Pacific that this dream could become a reality and that Canada is a country stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and since that time, to a third coast, on the Arctic Ocean.
As suggested by the Minister, we should congratulate the administrators of the Canadian Pacific who have diversified their operations over a number of years. This corporation, one of the most important in Canada, is the property of a great many Canadian shareholders.
I want to congratulate both the shareholders, who represent a significant part of the Canadian population, the administra-
Statements by Ministers
tors of the Canadian Pacific for their entrepreneurship, but also and especially the workers, not only those who have built the railway but also those who over the years have directly contributed to the success of that company.
Today being November 7, I cannot help being somewhat sorry when I think of the former employees of the Canadian Pacific who retired before 1978 with a lifetime pass as a result of their years of service for that company. They were used to travel with their lifetime passes which were unilaterally cancelled. I dare hope that, on this 100th Anniversary, the administrators of the Canadian Pacific will demonstrate their kind generosity for their former dedicated employees by announcing within the next few hours or days that they will return to these pensioners the passes which they certainly deserve.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, as a third generation employee of Canadian Pacific Limited-my grandfather having started employment with Canadian Pacific Limited in 1904, followed by my father and then myself-I join with the Minister in his remarks. I only wish the Minister had had more to say.
It is true that this is an historic anniversary. However, there is also an historical record which all Canadians and Members of this House should be reminded of. The workers, the immigrants-who worked, for the most part, under slave-labour conditions-deserve more recognition. One thinks immediately of the Chinese labour involved in the building of the Canadian Pacific railway line. Scores of those workers died in the process. They had to pay a head tax and live like animals, and all for two bits a day. Had it not been for those workers, that line would never have been finished. Recognition has to be given to the contribution of those workers.
So, while this is an historic event, it also is an opportune time to be reminded of this historic behaviour of this corporation, behaviour that represents a century of corporate welfare.
As was said in 1880 or 1881 by the then Leader of the Official Opposition: "Since we are putting up all of this money, land, mineral rights, subsidies, and so forth, why don't we own it?"
And we are still doing it. This particular corporation owes over $1 billion in deferred corporate taxes. It is a corporation that has got out from under commitments and agreements as to the type and amount of service that it would provide forever and a day, not the least of which was the agreement in respect of maintaining a statutory freight rate for the movement of grains.
The CPR has quite a record when it comes to bad corporate citizenship, but the act that takes the cake is the arbitrary cancelling of the passes of its own pensioners.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!

November 7, 1985
Statements by Ministers


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is the most despicable, small-minded and immoral corporate behaviour that I have seen in a long time. These are people who spent their lives working the CP rail line. They regarded the pass to be both a condition of their employment and a benefit from that employment.
Mr. Speaker, this corporation, as has been the case in 100 years of corporate misbehaviour, is again picking on those who cannot defend themselves, its own pensioners.
I want to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister that he, with the support of all Members of this House, must take all steps necessary to require this corporation-and it is something that has to happen this month-to cease and desist from taking that action. The pensioners of Canadian Pacific Limited should be allowed to keep their passes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Minister has made mention of Freedom to Move. It could also be read as Freedom to Manoeuvre- something which this corporation is already engaged in. This corporation, a corporation which was set up at a cost to the people of Canada, has made billions of dollars as a result of the land and money grants provided by the people of Canada since 1880. The return on that investment for the people of Canada has been, at best, minimal.
While we recognize the validity of this historic occasion, we also must remember that we have to put an end to the kind of corporate welfare operation that Canadian Pacific Limited has been involved in for the past 100 years.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: A question for the Minister-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Under the new rules, Members are not allowed to ask questions.


EXTERNAL AID
Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Last September 19, Mr. Speaker, a very strong earthquake hit Mexico, and we all know the aftermath. According to estimates, 8,000 people died in this tragedy and 30,000 more were injured. Material destruction was widespread-thousands of homes, schools, hospitals. Given the extent of the catastrophy, the international community rallied to provide help.
Mr. Speaker, I think that all Members of the House can be proud of Canada's quick response to this tragedy. Less than 36 hours after the earthquake, the Canadian Government had announced a $1 million contribution for emergency assistance through the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA. Without delay, we sent to Mexico a cargo of essential equipment along with expert staff. On September 24, we
announced an additional $250,000 contribution to a fund administered by our embassy in Mexico and reserved for small assistance projects. I should think that Canadians who had close relatives or friends in Mexico were also grateful for the exceptional efforts made by Department of External Affairs consular personnel to find people from whom no news had been received and to assist our fellow Canadians who needed help.

Last September, Mr. Speaker, I indicated that the Government would address itself to the matter of providing longer term aid as well. While the film crews are gone from Mexico, our determination to assist those in need remains. It is for the purpose of reporting to the House on that aspect of our work that I wish to speak today.

Our first task was to assess the needs and, to that end, Canada worked in close co-operation with Mexico. As soon as the Mexican Government knew what its priorities were with respect to long-term reconstruction, a Canadian planning mission was sent to Mexico. This team was made up of representatives of two Canadian non-governmental organizations, a spokesman for the business world, and CIDA officials. The members of the mission met with officials of various Mexican Government levels. We also consulted other donor countries, multilateral institutions, private interests and Mexican NGOs.
Mr. Speaker, following these discussions and an assessment of requirements, I am happy to announce that the Government of Canada will be using CIDA budgets to allocate an additional $3,750,000 for aid to Mexico. Areas that will benefit from this assistance-again, further to the discussions we had with the Mexican authorities-are education, housing and health.
The funds will be distributed as follows: first, one million dollars will be spent to rebuild and equip facilities on the campus of the National College for Technical and Professional Training, where a building collapsed, causing numerous casualties among the student population.
Second, I am happy to announce that CIDA will set aside one million dollars for the reconstruction of low-cost housing units and community facilities.
These funds will be channelled through Canadian NGOs under the auspices of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation. The project will be carried out in the most severely stricken communities, in co-operation with Mexican community agencies.
Third, we are allocating the sum of one million dollars for a rural health and pure water project, to be carried out by UNICEF in Guerrero State, which sufferred considerable damage. Beneficiaries of this project will be the peasants in the many isolated communities in this State.
Fourth, a special allocation of $500,000 will be set aside to cope with any additional requests we may receive within these

November 7, 1985

three areas. Finally, an additional $250,000 will be made available to the Canadian Embassy for its small projects program. Experience has shown that this is an ideal way to respond to immediate construction needs.
Yesterday, our embassy's management committee, which met to approve the initial series of projects, was already proceeding to identify specific projects. These will include rebuilding a primary school, a nursery school, a shelter for young girls and a community co-operative for manufacturing bricks.
These new contributions raise the total value of our aid to Mexico for both emergency assistance and long-term reconstruction to $5 million. I might add that this was done in under 50 days.
Canadians have a very special feeling of solidarity for this hospitable country which remains one of their favourite holiday destinations. Once again, Canada has proven to be true to its humanitarian traditions. 1 must say that it is indeed an honour for me to represent it whenever the time comes for assistance to be provided to countries and people in need.

And I want to pay tribute to all those who made it possible for us to act effectively in such difficult circumstances.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, the awful tragedy which occured last September 19 certainly hit the consciousness of people throughout the world. While I was naturally impressed by the announcement in today's statement that additional funds will be sent to various agencies to help these people recover from this terrible tragedy, what strikes me most forcibly is the feeling of solidarity and sympathy which has emerged amongst various nations. Immediately following the announcement of this earthquake, independently from any expression of opinion by whatever political regime, there was an immediate feeling in the consciousness of all human beings that they had to do something to help. This always strikes me when such tragedies occur and God knows that there have been a lot of them in the last 20 years: earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, and so on. Of course, I am not speaking about the hunger problem, but about the fact that human beings can suddenly put aside their differences to help a brother or a sister who is suffering and in need of assistance. However, I always ask myself a question: Why is it that we are so quick to provide assistance when such events happen and so quick to forget as soon as the situation is more or less back to normal?
I must tell the Minister that, naturally, there can be no disagreement with her statement. I must also tell her that we would like more to be done. We always want more in such circumstances, which is quite normal.
However, I would like to ask her whether it is truly possible to fool around with the funds provided to our embassies. For
Statements by Ministers
my part, both as member and as chairman of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, 1 have always urged that additional funds be provided to our embassies which can provide assistance on the spot to those who need it, immediately and at much less cost.
I have made this suggestion throughout the years and I would like the Minister to take note of it and refer it to the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). First, I would like more and more thought to be given to the possibility of increasing the funds provided not only to nongovernment organizations, because they are directly involved, and often act more quickly than large bureaucratic organizations.
Second, if possible, I would like the funds allocated to embassies, which are directly accountable to the Department, and I am not speaking about the embassies in European countries, because there are virtually no such funds provided for them, but about embassies in underdeveloped or Third World countries, to increase gradually each year so that the ambassador could provide assistance immediately and on the spot after making a single phone call, and even if it is impossible to make such a call.
1 would like the Minister to consider increasing the amount allocated to these funds placed at the disposal of embassies.
I would also like to join the Minister, but I would like to do so in a spectacular way, on behalf not only of this Party but of all Canadians, in order to commend officials of External Affairs who really, this time, outdid themselves . . . one casual look is enough, and it is more eloquent. But the Department deployed itself. . . I would like the Minister to transmit to her Department and to all those people who will be listening to us anyway, our most heartfelt thanks. They really have been at the complete disposal of Canadians.
The External Affairs Department is often criticized by certain people. We are not aware of what those persons have to go through. I for one have great admiration for the Department and its officials who represent us, often in an anonymous way, and when it so happens that one mistake is made, right away the entire department is criticized.
Well then, I have seen them at work, I was there, and Canadians also were able to see that on TV, and it was a very good thing that people could see the work done by Canadians at that time. I want the Minister to know that we are proud of those Canadians who work in her Department. This does not necessarily mean it is because of this Government, of course, and I want the Department to be aware of it. But I want to commend the Minister for any initiatives she may have taken.
On page 2 of her statement, it is said that a planning mission was sent to Mexico. Because of our desire to be well informed about this rather than out of mere curiosity, 1 would appreciate getting the list from her if only to commend those people who work for Canada, and to know who they are. For

November 7, 1985
Statements by Ministers
the future, this could provide us with ideas when we appear before the Committee on Reform . . . the Committee on the green paper, for making suggestions to the Government. Personally, as spokesman for this Party, 1 would like to know the names of the mission members and of the representatives of the various levels of Government in Mexico. I would greatly appreciate having the list. I know this is not very complicated, and that the Minister will be happy to send it to us.
I would also appreciate it if, through her Department, the Minister could tell us who were those people who were consulted, which were the other participating countries. Actually I am especially interested in having this information in order to report to my party how other countries responded to such a disaster . .. Because I would like soon to conclude with very concrete proposals which will somewhat extend beyond the statement and which result from the experience we had over the years and which might help the Government of this country. Therefore, 1 would like to know about those people who have been consulted, and about the multilateral institutions from both the private sector and the non-governmental Mexican organizations.
If this is not asking too much from the Minister, I should like her to tell us with respect to the $1 million earmarked for the reconstruction of low cost housing and community facilities, what she thinks would be their cost price in some countries? It is all very well to say that $1 million will be earmarked for the rebuilding of low cost housing, but how many units? Ten, twenty, thirty or fifty? I think that we would then better understand the thrust of the Canadian contribution, and if it is too low, have Canadians understand that we want to be generous and if we believe in world solidarity we should then be much more generous because this kind of solidarity should always be there since we never know who could be the victim sooner or later.
She stated that there will be a supervisory committee. I would like to know which of those non governmental organizations will control the funds made available to them. I am quite pleased, with an eye on the forthcoming holiday season, on this particular occasion of the Minister's statement to encourage Canadians to make their yearly contribution to UNICEF by buying something from them, since the benefits on the sale of all kinds of items are passed on to that organization. This is a concrete example of what UNICEF can do.
Before concluding, since the Speaker tells me that under the Standing Orders I cannot speak longer than the Minister, some day in committee I would like the Minister to reflect with us on the following fact-if the Speaker would allow me, I will take another 30 seconds-which has been bothering me for years and I mean the fact that we know that on this planet earthquakes do occur. There was an earthquake in North Yemen in January 1983; there were floods in South America
in March 1983. I could go as far back as 1980. We hear almost daily about disasters, earthquakes, flood relief for Argentina, floods in Paraguay. We hear about them constantly. What surprises me is that although all western democracies are constantly on the alert to defend themselves, that large military alliances such as NORAD and NATO have the necessary means and structure to defend their member countries within minutes-I am not blaming the Minister-that when a disaster occurs they spread the news that they will generously fight to defend the rights of suffering human beings, and that they do so in a quite unco-ordinated way. It seems to me that the UNDRO which is the United Nations body responsible for seeking help is not as well organized as we would like it to be, so that when a disaster occurs-we know there will be disasters, even though we do not know where or when they will occur-why is there not more co-ordinated effort on the part of each country when an earthquake hits. We are aware that earthquakes can occur either in rural or urban areas. In urban areas, we know that some buildings will crumble. That we know, Mr. Speaker. And day in and day out, medical teams are sent there. I think, Mr. Speaker, that such a suggestion would be quite proper because we would see how we could be prepared in the future, and how we could draw up, as Canadians are experts in this matter, a new world system for the co-ordination of all people who have something to offer to their brothers and sisters in need as the result of a great tragedy.
In my opinion, it could be a Canadian initiative and if the Minister would consider it, I would be willing to study it with her in committee. This could be a tremendous Canadian project that would show the world that if we are prepared to support military organizations, we are also prepared to show our great generosity and resourcefulness in having some sort of organization, multilateral or whatever which would immediately come to the rescue of human beings who are all our friends.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina) for providing an advance copy of her statement. Accompanying the statement was CIDA's estimate of damage that was done. Perhaps Hon. Members can get an idea of the magnitude of that damage if we compare it with what was considered to be a major disaster in Canada, the tornado which ripped through the community of Barrie in southern Ontario. I make this comparison with no intent to belittle what happened in Barrie. When tragedy strikes one individual, it is felt very keenly by that individual. When tragedy strikes a community, it affects the whole community in a very serious way. I am not in any way trying to belittle what happened in Canada as much as I am trying to show the magnitude of what happened in Mexico.
In Barrie, 12 people were killed, some 200 homes were destroyed, there were 300 injuries and the total loss to local
November 7, 1985

Petitions
business was estimated at some $27 million. As well, some 100 unemployment insurance claims were filed as a result of the incident. In Mexico, there were some 8,000 people killed, 30,000 people injured, 100,000 left homeless and 150,000 left unemployed. As well, there was extensive damage to schools, hospitals and other public buildings. The announcement of an additional $3.75 million in relief is welcome but it is by no means too much to meet the overwhelming needs that exist in Mexico today. It brings our contribution to both emergency assistance and long-term reconstruction to a total of $5 million.
As the Minister said, the film crews are gone from Mexico and will be responding to some new crisis or excitement in another part of the world. However, the need remains long after world attention has shifted. We know that that is the case as well in Africa. When the attention shifts from the drought in the Sahel, the TV cameras leave but the drought and suffering continue.
Canadians are very generous in sharing when confronted with need. However, like other people in the world, we tend to suffer from compassion fatigue when we are confronted by the same issues over and over again. What is unbelievable when it is seen for the first time on television becomes after awhile simply common.
We must have some way of dealing with the long-term needs after the emotional impact of the immediate crisis has passed. The Canadian International Development Agency is set up to meet that kind of need as is Canada's official Development Aid Program. The problem is that we keep backing away from our commitment to that long-term need.
We originally set a goal of .07 per cent of Gross National Product to meet long-term needs. Elowever, in the early 1980s, we moved the target date of that goal to 1990. At this time last year, we said that we were not going to reach that goal by 1990 and moved the date to 1995. The $5 million we are providing for immediate needs in Mexico comes out of a very restricted CIDA budget. By moving the goal posts we are making it more difficult to respond generously to the immediate as well as long-term needs of Mexico. I urge the Government to take that into consideration. As well, I urge the Government to do what it can with agencies such as the International Monetary Fund to ensure generous treatment of Mexico and other Third World countries which are attempting to reschedule very heavy debt payments. This $5 million we are providing is a drop in the bucket and it will be useless unless we enable those countries to get on their own feet economically.
I want to leave the Government with those two suggestions. We appreciate what has been done in this initial quick response to the immediate crisis in Mexico. We urge the Government to reinstate as a goal the .07 per cent of GNP for ODA by 1990 and do what it can to encourage the IMF and World Bank to reschedule Third World countries' debt.


PETITIONS
Ms. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by several hundred residents of the riding of Montreal-Mercier, and by members of the Women's Coalition, who are asking this House to withdraw Bill C-70 aimed at deindexing family allowances.


Carole Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition, signed by a group of students of Urgel-Archambault Secondary School in the riding of Montreal-Mercier. They have thought about the issue of nuclear disarmament, and they are asking this House to work toward world peace.
Mr. Speaker, this petition was signed by 450 students. [English]


Carole Jacques: I also have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the textile workers of Montreal-Mercier who are concerned about low-cost imports competing unfairly with their industry and threatening thousands of jobs in Quebec.


Carole Jacques: And finally, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting to the House a petition signed by homeowners living at Nos. 7426 to 7450, Jacques-Rousseau Street, Riviere-des-Prairies, in the riding of Montreal-Mercier. They are asking for the same mail delivery services as the other residents on this street.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the pleasure and duty to present four petitions to the House signed by Canadian citizens from Ituna, Moose Jaw, Weyburn, Mel-fort, St. Brieux, Stony Beach, Alvena and Domremy. The undersigned petitioners call upon the House to retain full indexing of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases, for which they and 1 will forever humbly pray.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I also have the pleasure and duty to present a petition signed by many Canadians from Winnipeg who join with people in other Canadian cities in adding their voice to the protest against deindexation of family allowances and unfair tax increases. They call upon this House to do something about that repre-

November 7, 1985
Petitions
hensible measure being taken by the Government at this very time.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition signed by citizens of Victoria who protest the deindexation of family allowances concurrent with tax increases which will hit low and medium-income Canadians at the same time millions of dollars are being given away to the banks and oil companies. They call upon the House of Commons to rescind its deindexation proposals as well as unfair tax increases.
[ Translation]


Mr. Ricardo Lopez (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting to the House a petition signed by 70 residents of Saint-Remi and Saint-Michel, in the riding of Chateauguay.
These residents are producers of table potatoes and they are asking Parliament and the Government to come to their assistance and compensate them for the heavy losses suffered in marketing their product.
These losses are jeopardizing the future of producers who are not in a position to absorb the potential loss caused by the drop in the price of table potatoes.


Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 25 residents of my riding of Welland and other parts of Ontario who would like to see the establishment of a service medal to honour Canadian soldiers who fought so bravely in the Korean War.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present this petition on behalf of families in Canada at the same moment that the Government is considering this measure in committee. The petition reads as follows:

That family allowances and child tax credit government programs provide essential help to families with children.
That families with children include a large proportion of single parent families, one of the poorer groups in our society, and that the Government made a commitment during the election campaign to take action to strengthen the family unit.
Wherefore the petitioners humbly pray that the Government of Canada reestablish full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.

That is from the great riding of Shefford.
I also have a petition signed by constituents of the great federal riding of Richelieu, again calling on the Government, in light of the necessity of family allowances and child tax
credits, to give those families, in particular single-parent families, the boost they sometimes need to put food on the table. They call on the Government to live up to its election promises and back off on deindexation of family allowances and child tax credits.
I have another petition from the great riding of Quebec-East seeking a retraction by the Government of its decision to cut back on family allowances, child tax credit and child tax exemptions. The residents of that riding believe that the Government-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I ask the Hon. Member to not make a short speech on every petition?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I will not make a short speech. I will simply give to the House the petition on behalf of not only these residents but thousands of other Canadians who are seeking the same thing.
I have one more petition from the residents of the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe.
[ Translation]
The petitioners, also from the Province of Quebec, ask the Government to withdraw its Bill asking families to pay the cost of the federal deficit while it is giving money away to businesses and banks.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of the fine Province of British Columbia who are concerned that the Government is continuing with its plans to deindex family allowances. They cannot for the life of them figure out why anyone would do this when, on the one hand, money can be found to pay foreign bankers but not to assist hard-pressed families raising their children.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will all questions stand?


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week the Government was about to table answers to question Nos. 450, 451 and 452 in this House. It has used a technicality in order to delay the answering of those questions. It is allegedly waiting for me to initial a document so that the questions can
November 7, 1985

be reput on the Order Paper the next day. Mr. Speaker, is the Government so embarrassed by the questions relating to the expenditures for travel by the former Minister of the Environment that it is delaying until Friday in order not to get press coverage on this obviously very embarrassing issue to the Government? The Government has had the answer since Tuesday. Why can it not be tabled now?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe a question has been put to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that there has been no intent to delay.


Don Boudria: Why have you?


Gary Michael Gurbin: We are certainly not embarrassed. I will take his comments as representation and will ensure that the questions are answered as quickly as possible.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have another question?


Don Boudria: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask why this document marked "confidential until answered" dated 05.11.85 was given to the Whip of my Party on Tuesday. The Government is alleging that it has the answers and is not willing to answer those questions in the House 48 hours later. If the Government had them 48 hours ago, why is it not providing them now? Surely there is an answer to this question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Take it as notice.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I will clearly have to investigate the comments of the Hon. Member. I will undertake to do that and to respond to him as quickly as possible.


Don Boudria: Yeah, tomorrow afternoon, sure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some reluctance, but since the House has spent a great deal of time in the past several years trying to reform the House and make the Members of the House more in control of its processes and more in control of the Crown corporations
Point of Order-Mr. Althouse
and agencies that the House establishes, I want to bring to your attention the law as it relates to the Crown corporation, Canagrex. I refer to Volume IV of the Statutes of Canada, Chapter 152. Section 40.(1) reads:
Canagrex shall, within three months after the termination of each financial year-
That financial year ended in March, 1985.
-make a report to the Minister, in such form as he may direct, on the operations of Canagrex for that financial year.
It goes on in subsection 3 to explain:
The Minister shall cause a copy of the report made to him pursuant to subsection (1) to be laid before Parliament-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Do I understand correctly that the Member is rising on a point of order?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair believed that the Member was speaking on debate on Canagrex under Bill C-42. Very well, the Member on a point of order.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Yes, 1 believe you even said "point of order" when I was recognized, Mr. Speaker. The subsection reads:
The Minister shall cause a copy of the report made to him pursuant to subsection (1) to be laid before Parliament on any of the first fifteen days that either House of Parliament is sitting after the report is made to him;
We have, therefore, established that the report should have been made to the Minister three months after March 31. We have established that once that report has been received by the Minister in the form that he wishes, he must-he "shall" it says-present that report to the House within 15 sitting days. 1 submit that those sitting days have long since lapsed. It goes on to say that:
-and every annual report laid before Parliament pursuant to this subsection shall stand referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The reasoning for that is very clear. That is the immediate opportunity for Members of the House to discuss the annual report and to understand the functions of this Crown corporation.
I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because it is my contention that the Government is attempting, with Bill C-42, to avoid the law, to try to change the law with this particular Bill. It has failed to uphold the existing law. I argue that because the Government has failed to live up to the spirit of openness which the Committee on Parliamentary Reform has been trying to instill in the House for the last five or six years, that this Bill at least be set down. It is out of order. Until such time as the existing laws can be adhered to, we should not be dealing with laws that will simply make what is now illegal legal.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It's out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Fraleigh) on the same point of order.

November 7, 1985
Canagrex Dissolution Act


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that there was no notice given of this so that the Minister could have responded in kind.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Minister should be in the House. Where is he?


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: I want to take the opportunity to give you my perception of this issue. It is that the report is not legally tabled until the end of the fiscal year at which time the Minister is required to table the audited report as 1 understand it. I apologize to the Hon. Member. He did raise this issue this morning and I should have taken the opportunity at the noon hour to have verified it. However, as I understand it, the Minister does not have to file the audited report until the end of the fiscal year.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That was last March.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) may have a point, however, the Chair does not believe that it is up to the Chair to rule on a legal interpretation of a particular statute.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is asking the Chair to rule on the order of this House having to do with a legal requirement for an annual report to be tabled in this House, as the law requires, and it has not been done. That is all we are asking. We are not asking the House for a legal opinion. We are just waiting for the report and it has not been tabled. The Government has broken the law.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will rule that the Hon. Member is asking for an interpretation of the law and not an interpretation of the Standing Orders. The Chair is ready to give an interpretation of the Standing Orders, but does not believe that this is the request which is presently being made.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Layton (for the Minister of Agriculture) that Bill C-42, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statements, consideration of Government Orders will be extended by 41 minutes this day. Therefore, Private Members' Hour will begin at 5.41 o'clock p.m. I will recognize the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on debate.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a point of order. I had time left in the time allotted to me for questions when the House recessed. Do I not-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, the Member is correct, he had time left, but I saw no one rising on questions or comments.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Well, there were a lot of allegations made by previous speakers and 1 thought surely there would be all kinds of questions on what I had said.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You blew it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately for the Member, I do not believe there are.


An Hon. Member:: Nobody wants to talk to you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap on debate.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You said the Minister was answering those questions, not you.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise in my place today to speak against this piece of legislation. The Government has taken the decision to wind up what is probably one of the most creative, productive and valuable Crown corporations ever. Quite frankly, I remember very clearly, not many months ago, when members of the government Party were in Opposition and stood in their places, both in the House and in Committee, speaking about the value of having a corporation such as Canagrex in place. They had some concerns about various aspects of it, but, by and large, agreed with the principle. As a matter of fact, I believe it was the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) who at one time stood in his place and indicated the value of having a Crown corporation such as Canagrex in place. It is peculiar how one forgets about commitments made to various groups once one is in Government. In this case, the group is the farmers of Canada.
When talking about Canagrex, one cannot help but think of corporations such as the Export Development Corporation. It does an effective job in terms of assisting the industrial sector to develop an export option for its products. It has a budget of some $20 million of contingent liability. It provides specific financial lending and insurance assistance to help reduce the very substantial risk in the export of Canadian industrial products overseas. We consider this corporation as an important aspect of our trade policy and an important component of the development of Canada's economy for export trade.
There is also the Canada Commercial Corporation which assists Canadian corporations, both large and small, to find opportunities for expanding the sale of their goods overseas in foreign markets. I believe the record would show that the EDC and the CCC have very impressive track records and could in fact accomplish much more.

November 7, 1985

However, there is no commitment to our farmers. They take advantage of our most important resource, agriculture, in order to grow foodstuffs for domestic purposes as well as for sale overseas. There is no commitment to assist the development of those overseas trade opportunities. Canagrex was a Crown corporation that was attempting to do just that. Although it had not been given enough time to prove itself, it had a reasonable track record in the short time it operated since its establishment in January, 1984. Canagrex had a reasonable track record and had made a great many sales. It provided many opportunities for individuals and firms throughout the country. I ask Hon. Members to stand in their place and deny that there were not literally dozens of sales which had not taken place prior to the formation of Canagrex and that there were many more potential sales before the Government decided to wind down its operations.
The Government has taken this action strictly for political reasons. It was fashionable during the campaign to denounce and decry all Crown corporations and say that Government involvement in such enterprises was bad. When one considers the rhetoric used about Canagrex, it was very disappointing that people would politicize the development of this newly formed Crown corporation. As a result of that rhetoric and the attacks made against Canagrex by the Conservatives during the election campaign, I suggest they felt an obligation to wind it down once they formed the Government.
I believe we should comment on the various aspects of Canagrex itself. In fact, Canagrex was a model of what Crown corporations should be in the future. There was a requirement to review its effectiveness every five years. Another section in the Canagrex Act enabled the Auditor General to have access to its books at any time and to have full access to its operations so that the people of Canada would know if they were getting their money's worth.
Canagrex consisted of a broadly based Board of Directors that reflected the need for wide ranging representation. The Chief Executive Officer and President, Mr. Edwin Story, had acquired extensive experience in the export field over a long period of time. He knew the export field and knew what was required in terms of opening new market opportunities. Mr. Glenn Flaten was Chairman of the 11 member Board of Directors for Canagrex. He was President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and a member of numerous other agricultural related associations and boards. Mr. Howard Malcolm was President of the Canadian Pork Council and obviously familiar with the hog industry. Mr. Walter Kroeker was President and Director of Vegetable Growers in Manitoba, a vegetable farmer and businessman, and past-President of the Canadian Horticultural Council. There were many qualified individuals on the board who represented various sectors of the agricultural industry. They played an active role once Canagrex began operations in January, 1984. It was most unfortunate that there was no consultation between the Government and those involved in the agricultural community before the decision was made to wind down this operation, especially when one considers that the Government promised
Canagrex Dissolution Act
to conduct a great deal of consultations with groups before making decisions. That was not the case here.
Many people sent telegrams, wrote letters and sent delegations to Ottawa, at the eleventh hour, once they heard that the Government was planning to wind down the affairs of Canagrex. Let me refer to some of those telegrams. A telegram from Mary Boyd of Charlottetown states:
Please reconsider Canagrex Bill. Should be discussed by Agricultural Committee. Canada needs Canagrex.
Another telegram from a farmer on Prince Edward Island requests the Government to reconsider the Canagrex decision. He asks that the Canagrex officials appear before the Agriculture Committee to explain the work of the Crown Corporation. Robert Jeppsen of New Brunswick, who was with the National Farmers' Union states:
Let me state my disappointment with the cancellation of Canagrex. Our present system of exporting potatoes has not proven beneficial to potato producers nor have our exporters been responsible agents abroad. We see Canagrex as a sign of hope. Therefore we request your Government to reconsider Canagrex and bring it to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for hearings.
A dairy farmer from Grand Falls, New Brunswick and another farmer from Manitoba have indicated how vital Canagrex was to the farm communities and their future. There are pages and pages containing the names of active and knowledgeable farmers who realize the potential of that sector. That potential will disappear because of Conservative rhetoric and ideological commitment about Crown corporations.
My hon. friend, the Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) indicated that we are concerned about proceeding with this Bill because it appears that it is against the law. For example, Section 40(1) of the Canagrex Act states:
Canagrex shall, within three months after the termination of each financial year, make a report to the Minister, in such form as he may direct, on the operations of Canagrex for that financial year.
That is straightforward. It goes on:
(3) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report made to him pursuant to subsection (1) to be laid before Parliament on any of the first fifteen days that either House of Parliament is sitting after the report is made to him; and every annual report laid before Parliament pursuant to this subjection shall stand referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
It is our interpretation, as New Democrats, that Government is proceeding in an inappropriate manner. It has not fulfilled its legal obligations. We feel very uncomfortable dealing with something by which the Government is breaking the law, as best as we can determine.
Therefore, in light of our hesitancy to proceed with something that may in fact be illegal, and considering that we have many pressing matters to deal with that are of a legal nature, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House do now adjourn.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

November 7, 1985
Canagrex Dissolution Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Speaker:: In my view, it is deemed to be 6.41 p.m. I do now leave the Chair until tomorrow morning at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.17 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 8, 1985