1985-10-02

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government has granted an extremely unusual, if not unprecedented tax ruling to participants in the Gulf Canada takeover. Up to $1 billion in tax revenue is at stake in this issue. I believe it is critical for Parliament and Canadian taxpayers to know whether there was ministerial involvement in this tax ruling or whether the matter was determined solely by officials of the Departments of National Revenue and Finance. Parliament has a right to know whether the extraordinary tax break was the critical element in the Gulf takeover bid.
This tax ruling raises extraordinary matters of ministerial responsibility, concentration of economic power, and the appearance of fairness. I have repeatedly stated that the most effective means of attacking the federal Government's deficit is by a thoroughgoing examination of corporate tax breaks. This tax ruling is a classic example of my point.
1 have no doubt that the businesses involved in this matter acted within their rights, but it is not clear whether Cabinet Ministers acted in the public interest. The tax deal and the huge sums of money involved in the Gulf deal should be examined by Parliament in detail. For a business to seek a favourable tax ruling is perfectly legitimate. It is equally legitimate for Canadian taxpayers to know whether and why a tax break of up to $1 billion was granted.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Good news, Mr. Speaker. Canada's aging St. Laurent-class destroyers are finally coming out of the dry dock. They have been stranded for months while major refits have fallen further and further behind schedule. Now we know that the first destroyer will indeed be ready in time to take up its vital task in defending Canada-to be
scrapped or mothballed. That's right. The Government is spending $15 million to overhaul these 30-year-old ships at the same time as it is taking them out of service.
Won't Canadians be proud to know that their navy won't have to be shamefully towed to the junkyard? Instead, Canada's navy can hold its head high as its once proud vessels steam steadily on to the scrap heap. Can't you just see all hands on deck in their spanking new uniforms, saluting their commander as he hands over the keys to the highest bidder? Won't taxpayers be proud to know that the metal that gets melted down into their next Toyota will be taken from the finest fighting ships Canada can muster?
You would think that the Government would be proud of its latest effort to streamline Canada's navy and create jobs at the same time. Think of the benefits to the museums and scrap dealers of Canada. Why does the Government want to cover up this great success story?


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians had a vigorous debate in recent months on Canada's participation in SDI. I welcomed the Government's decision not to participate. I did so for a variety of reasons, but primarily because I felt strongly that as Canadians we should set our own research agenda. I believe we should concentrate our research initiatives in areas crucial to our economic and social well-being; on things such as transportation, telecommunications and related aerospace systems, on health care, agriculture, forestry, mining, microelectronics, robotics, and our ability to live and work in northern terrains.
It is essential that we compete in the technological world of tomorrow. To do this, we must ensure that we have the scientific and engineering capability to be at the leading edge of future technologies. We must fund the academic and research components of our colleges and universities to ensure the future availability of those required skills, expertise, and new technologies.
Technology is one of our greatest engines of economic growth. Support for research is fundamental to establish a new era in science and technology to meet future challenges of our economic planning. I commend the federal Government for its commitment to exploit this opportunity.

October 2, 1985


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, everybody, including the members of this House, knows that the Liberals, sadly bereft of Members and funding, can no longer afford proper research services. They have to rely on their instincts and the headlines in the media. That is the basis on which they are using, and will continue to use, the time of the House: by asking insinuating and insidious questions which mislead Canadians by camouflaging the real issues. The Liberal Government failed miserably on the important issues, specially those related to energy. And the few remaining members have failed in their role as parliamentarians.
During the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, we said that we intended to put the economy back on a sound basis and get this country out of the situation it was put in by the Liberals.
Today, the Globe and Mail published the following headline with commentary on pages B1 and BIO: "GDP grows 1 per cent during July". So far, since we came to power, the economy has outperformed the expectations of our forecasters. The output for 1985 will be 4 per cent higher than in 1984, and this will apply to all sectors: housing, manufacturing and durable goods.
Mr. Speaker, these statistics were published yesterday by Statistics Canada. I wish the Liberals would learn to read and comment on the important issues instead of indulging in this eternal nit-picking.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, it is my imperative duty to call the attention of Parliament and of the Canadian people to the unbelievable aggression of Israel against Tunisia which is located over 2,500 kilometres away from Israel. Not only is that bombardment an inexcusable aggression, but moreover, it is targeted against the most moderate Arab country whose President, Mr. Habib Bour-guiba, has advocated, since 1965 in Jericho, an approach different from that of every other leader in the region with regard to the fact of the existence of Israel.
Besides these tragedies committed against Tunisians, that aggression has jeopardized the peace process and the imminent negotiations between the U.S.A. and a joint delegation of Jordanians and Palestinians.
I do appreciate the condemnation issued by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who stated unequivocally the illegality of that aggression.

Mr. Speaker, I am very sad to see that the State of Israel is getting involved in institutionalized terrorism.
Throughout the world, including in Lanarca not long ago, there are people who commit crimes, but this does not mean a Government should kill or mutilate innocent people as the Government of Israel has done in Tunisia.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, what is it about Petro-Canada that causes the Liberals to have such selective memories? Last December we heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) call for an inquiry into tax questions surrounding the PetroCan purchase of Petrofina. Today he calls for another inquiry. He showed no embarrassment that it was a Liberal Government, rather than a Conservative one, which gave $200 million in tax breaks to the Belgian owners of Petrofina enabling them to avoid payment of capital gains tax in Canada.
Now he is hot on the trail-after The Globe and Mail, of course-of the Olympia and York-Gulf-Petro-Canada dealings of last summer. He tells us that the partnership agreement between Gulf and Norcen to own and then resell the Edmonton refinery to Petro-Canada will cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. He selectively forgets that this artificial partnership arrangement, part of the corporate take-over game, was a Liberal tax law.
The Conservative Government gave special tax breaks to the Reichmanns to help them pay for Gulf, and Canadians deserve to find out just how much was given away and how. However, Canadians should also know that it was Liberal give-away tax laws which were used by the companies and the Government, the hypocrisy of the Opposition notwithstanding.


MARINE SAFETY
Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had the privilege of attending a dedication ceremony of a new marine rescue vessel to be based in Sidney, in my riding, and named after Mr. Jack Simpson, the first westerner to be elected National President of the Power Boat Squadron and a founding member of the Marine Rescue Auxiliary.
Marine safety is a matter of growing concern for Government as even greater numbers of Canadians are taking to the
October 2, 1985


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
water for their recreation. Others have spoken in the House, and I identify with their remarks, about the need for increased funding of our Canadian Coast Guard. Frequently lost in this debate is the very valuable role played by the Marine Rescue Auxiliary, those men and women who contribute so generously of their own time and their own money so that all of us can enjoy our waters in greater security. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, and other Members of the House would wish to join me in giving recognition and expressing our gratitude to Auxililiary members like the late Jack Simpson for this important voluntary service.
As a footnote, I would ask that those involved in disposal of Crown assets give serious consideration to making available to the Auxiliary, at book cost, marine equipment judged surplus through normal replacement. In this way the valuable work of the Marine Rescue Auxiliary can be enhanced and expanded to provide even greater security to those many of us who enjoy recreation on the water.

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, several events have disrupted the lives of people in Mexico and the United States.
The earthquakes in Mexico and the damage caused by Hurricane Gloria, specially in the New England states, have once again given Canadians a chance to show their generosity.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to pay tribute to all Canadian men and women dedicated to helping those in need, and this includes Governments, public servants, relief organizations, rescue teams, workers and private citizens. I think it is only natural to congratulate those involved on the good work they have done in these and similar circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay special tribute to the teams of workers who agreed to go to the United States to help restore power supplies in areas that were badly hit by the storm. Hydro Quebec and its employees are doing fantastic work and are worthy representatives of our country. Thanks to their contribution, our relations cannot but improve.
Mr. Speaker, to all those dedicated Canadian men and women, I want to say: Bravo! and thank you on behalf of all Canadians who are proud of what you are doing.


CN LAY-OFFS-IMPACT ON MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, the CN announced 1,328 lay-offs in various yards throughout Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Fernand Robichaud: Not only are those job losses considerable, but Eastern Canada yards will be hardest hit by the lay-offs.
Two hundred and twenty-five jobs will disappear in Moncton, New Brunswick, including 73 as early as October 11 and the remainder slated to be gone by December 31. Mr. Speaker, the CN's decision shocks me and makes me very upset.
The fact is that Moncton CN yard workers got together last summer and forcefully demonstrated against the impending CN lay-offs. Through the Hon. Member for Moncton, the Minister of Transport had assured the demonstrating workers that he would speak out against massive lay-offs. There again, Mr. Speaker, the Government chose to betray the workers.
I therefore urge the Government to reverse the decision of the Crown corporation which has been insensitive to the plea of its workers. It has to realize that the loss of those jobs will have dire consequences in the Maritime Provinces.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: This coming November 3, Mr. Speaker, most of my Verdun-Saint-Paul constituents will vote in a referendum on Montreal's proposed annexation of Verdun.
Federal Members of Parliament have no say in matters such as this one which falls under exclusive municipal jurisdiction. Still, Mr. Speaker, may I urge all my fellow citizens of Verdun to become fully cognizant with all the implications of this important vote, particularly by attending the forthcoming public gatherings. I emphasize that as many Verdun residents as possible should vote in the referendum so that the voice of the people might be heard quite clearly, for the future of the City of Verdun is theirs alone to decide.
The simple fact that the Cities and Towns Act calls for a referendum when enough people are against annexation attests to the great significance of this decision and should be reflected in the interest shown by the people. I intend to follow the debate very closely, convinced as I am that the residents of Verdun will vote in the best interests of their community.

October 2, 1985
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. This morning, in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, former and current plant employees of Star-Kist stated at a press conference that eight Conservative Members of Parliament from New Brunswick toured the Star-Kist plant on April 22, one week before the former Minister of Fisheries overruled his inspectors and released tainted tuna on the market on April 29.
Does the Prime Minister still expect Canadians to believe that after eight Members of Parliament from his caucus toured the plant, assured the workers they would raise the matter in the highest councils of the Government, they did not raise the matter in caucus or with him directly? Is he asking the country to believe that?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. What I have said is exactly what transpired.
The only major item that I can remember, where there was a conflict between a Member of this House and someone else, involved the Leader of the Opposition when Mr. Trudeau accused him of misrepresentation of events in his recollections of events.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My recollection has been consistent and honest from the beginning, unlike some other Members of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT CORRESPONDENCE BE TABLED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are not on the hustings. We are not in an election. We are in Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I think the country expects a straight answer from the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I have a supplementary question for this Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister table in this House correspondence between himself and his office and the eight Members of Parliament concerned from
New Brunswick relating to this issue or other relevant matters?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such correspondence. But I will tell my right hon. friend that not only has the country been getting a straight answer, but I have stood in this House and 1 have responded fully to questions from my hon. friends. I have challenged the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that if he has anything at variance, let him put his seat on the line and I will meet him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S CORRESPONDENCE
John Napier Turner: That kind of bravado and that kind of bluff are not going to fool anybody, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Let's have a full-fledged sword fight.


John Napier Turner: The only Member from New Brunswick who did not attend the Star-Kist plant was the Hon. Minister of Forestry, who happens to be the regional Minister from New Brunswick.
Would the Prime Minister instruct his Minister of Forestry to table all correspondence relating to the Star-Kist matter?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Put your seat on the line.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I should refer to a document released by the Prime Minister's Office on May 11, 1984, Mr. Speaker. When my hon. friend talks about the accuracy of recollections, Prime Minister Trudeau in reference to this gentleman said:
The Prime Minister responded that that was surely a misrepresentation of events.
That was Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau speaking about a Liberal leadership candidate. That is what happened in 1984.


DISARMAMENT
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister would be well advised to concentrate on the problems facing this country today instead of talking about problems that existed a long time ago.
Mr. Speaker, my questions are directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
October 2, 1985



I would like to ask him a question. A major obstacle to the current Geneva disarmament negotiations is the refusal of President Reagan to place the star wars program on the negotiating table. Yesterday, Canada's disarmament ambassador, Doug Roche, advised a committee of the House that the Government had "consistently" taken the position that the star wars issue should be placed on the negotiating table. Would the Prime Minister confirm that this has been consistently the position of his Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member would be able to be more current with these events if he had more time to spend in the House. He would know that this question has not only been raised but has been answered. He would also know that when the Geneva talks first commenced involving Mr. Gromyko, the then Soviet Foreign Minister, and Mr. Shultz, the question of space was on the agenda. It remains on the agenda.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Yesterday, the ambassador for disarmament stated it was the Government's position that star wars would have to be put on the negotiating table and be part of the negotiations. Is that the Government's position, yes or no?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Canadian Government is that the space issue must be on the negotiating table. It was the Government's position when the Geneva Conference was called and it was the Government's position yesterday, and today, when the ambassador for disarmament discussed that position.

Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I stood in this House of Commons, as a Prime Minister must, and 1 responded for a week fully, completely, and accurately to every question that was put forward including some, I think my hon. friend would agree, that were unworthy of the House in the manner in which they were put.


Mr. Deans:: Not asked by me.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Prime Minister's responsibility-and it is the responsibility of any Minister of the Crown-is to respond completely and totally to questions put to him. That is exactly what I have done. I can think of nothing that would improve upon that at all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Surely he recognizes that, notwithstanding what he may believe to be true, there are any number of people who have made contradictory statements. It is important, in the public interest, that the public be able to hear the answers given by those individuals to the questions from Members of Parliament. Does the Prime Minister not recognize that this is not an internal Conservative matter? It is a public matter which ought to be looked at in a public forum, and that public forum is a committee.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks the same question, but in a different decibel tone, I will admit. It is the same question coming back and forth. The fundamental question is that matters, as raised by Hon. Members on the floor of the House of Commons, were responded to fully by the Prime Minister and his colleagues. I went further and suggested to any Hon. Member of the House that if he or she has any information at all at variance with that, let him or her produce it and accept the consequences. That is the way the parliamentary system is supposed to function, and that is the way we propose to have it function.


FISHERIES
Some Hon. Members:: 
OFFICIALS' KNOWLEDGE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The whole tuna episode is becoming more bizarre with every passing day. Given that the information comes out in dribs and drabs about who was involved and who knew what, does the Prime Minister not now feel that it would be appropriate, in the public interest, to have this whole matter reviewed by a committee of Parliament in order that the public of Canada can know what actually happened?


Ian Deans: In a different decibel tone, if I may, Mr. Speaker, the facts are very clear. There are those who are now employed within the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans who have direct information relative to what took place leading up to the decision by the Government to take the tuna off the shelves. Those people have not been able to answer the questions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a third question.

October 2, 1985
Oral Questions


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: He's calling you to order. You have to sit down when he stands.


An Hon. Member:: He can do his job without you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I look at both sides and say there has been a great deal of back and forth today which would be nice to avoid.


Ian Deans: Notwithstanding the Prime Minister wants to answer everything himself, would he agree that those individuals who have direct knowledge, who were involved in the process, should be able to answer to the Parliament of Canada and should be given a chance so to do through the parliamentary system?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I never sought to answer everything myself. What I did do, and as a Prime Minister ought to do, I think, was to respond to every question no matter how discourteous or unworthy from some quarters of this House. That is the essence of parliamentary behaviour. All of the information that my friend sought-


An Hon. Member:: You are stonewalling, Brian.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -I have provided fully-


Ian Deans: No.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and completely.


Ian Deans: No.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is what Question Period is all about. That is what this House of Commons is all about, and Canadians know that.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed as well to the Prime Minister. Since the statement last Thursday on the proposed negotiation with the United States, the Government has given no information to Canadians about what kind of industries will be part of that negotiation. At the same time we have had a wide variety of American officials giving us the benefit of their wisdom on what should or should not be negotiated by Canada.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, the United States Ambassador in Saskatoon yesterday said: "Vital issues on national identity and regional development should be involved in the negotiation". He named banking, publishing, broadcasting, and lumber as examples.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Question.


Lloyd Axworthy: When will the Government begin to give us a clear idea of what industries will be involved in the negotiations? And when will he begin answering those U.S. officials so that we can set our own negotiating position and not have to rely upon U.S. officials to tell us what we should be talking about?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Ambassador of the United States is, of course, free to indicate what the United States would like to see in any negotiation, if there is to be a negotiation. The Prime Minister of Canada and I, and other Ministers of this Government, have made it clear that in negotiations which might proceed, the cultural identity of Canada is not negotiable by this Government, which has recently asserted the sovereignty of Canada after the former Government declined to do that-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Too much to late.


Charles Joseph Clark: -for 16 long years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Canada's social programs are not on the table because they are part of the fabric of Canada. Those assurances have been given. The Hon. Member should stop trying to sow fear in the country.


Lloyd Axworthy: Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is incapable of understanding the difference between trying to get the proper information so that Canadians can properly debate this issue, and sowing fear.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs specifically, does he agree, or is the Government rejecting the position of the U.S. Ambassador that we should restrain our lumber exports, that we should put banking, publishing, agriculture and other issues of a cultural nature on the bargaining table. Is the Minister denying at this time that the U.S. Ambassador is wrong? Or is he saying he is right in saying those things should be negotiated?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it may not be asking for much, but I hope this answer is clearer than that question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The American Ambassador is free to state what he wants to state regarding the position of Canada.
Let me make two points, if I may, briefly, Mr. Speaker. I believe that Canadians, as we anticipate these negotiations, are interested in looking at two things. First, we want the interests of Canada to be protected, culturally and socially, and very much our commerical and economic interests. Second, we
October 2, 1985

know that if negotiations proceed we will be entering into negotiation with a very tough group of negotiators in the United States. What I am being invited to do here is to convey in advance, by way of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons, the negotiating position of Canada that we might take to the table. That would be a recipe of failure for Canada.
I do not intend to indulge in that Liberal approach to failure.
[DOT] (M30)


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suppose it clearly is Wednesday.


DISARMAMENT
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and indeed only the Prime Minister can answer it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nystrom:: I would ask Joe if I were you.


Pauline Jewett: However, my question is for the Prime Minister. The important point about which Ambassador Roche spoke yesterday was that he understood that the Prime Minister will be bringing up with President Reagan, when they meet later this month, the matter of the Strategic Defence Initiative being on the table at Geneva. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will be asking the President to put SDI on the table in Geneva?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: And Joe.


Pauline Jewett: Joe isn't the person we were talking about.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have always respected the status of the Hon. Member as the spokesperson on external affairs for her Party and I hope that, since the matter falls within my jurisdicton, she will accept my reply.
First, although I would have to check the "blues" of the committee, something which may well be unparliamentary, I believe that the Hon. Member has inadvertently characterized the remarks of Ambassador Roche in a way that is not strictly accurate. I would have to check that out. The point is that Canada has welcomed from the outset the inclusion of the question of the discussion of space in the Geneva Accord. It is entirely possible that that matter may be raised when the Prime Minister and other Summit leaders meet with President Reagan prior to the Reagan-Gorbachev meeting. There is no new development. Nothing new has happened.
Oral Questions


PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I made very careful notes and I quoted the remarks exactly as I took them. I would not like to ask a question of the Secretary of State as he is not meeting the President. I wish he were, but he is not.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He's better than Brian anyway.


Pauline Jewett: Therefore, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if, when he meets the President, he will press him to do the very thing that Ambassador Roche understands he has already agreed to do, namely, be sure that star wars is on the agenda in Geneva.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, through the intermediation of the Prime Minister, the Ambassador for Disarmament and many others, Canada has worked consistently to try to bring an end to an arms race that we believe is threatening to all Canadians. We intend to continue to proceed with that posture.
We believe that the meeting that will be occurring between Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Reagan is a meeting of historic proportions. I think it is helpful that the United States has decided to consult with its allies prior to that meeting. The Prime Minister of Canada will speak in the interest of a peaceful world at that meeting, as he has at others.


Pauline Jewett: I need to ask a further supplementary question.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the statements made this morning by former employees of Star-Kist in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, in view of the continuing series of contradictions that have been so evident with respect to the entire tuna question, and because we in this House have to accept the Prime Minister's statements, I would ask the Prime Minister why he will not agree with the request made by both opposition Parties that this whole matter be referred to a parliamentary committee for review and that all those involved in the tuna question be given a chance to testify so that we can get to the bottom of the matter. Why will the Prime Minister not agree to that?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Again I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member the fact that this kind of question has been answered over and over and over again.


Mr. Hopkins:: But with no answer.

October 2, 1985
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: As the Hon. Member knows, being an experienced Member, he ought not to do so in such a repetitive fashion because it is offensive to Citation 359 of Beauchesne's.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: In addition, perhaps the Hon. Member is unaware that the Standing Committee is meeting. If he is so all-fired anxious to ask all these questions and have the answers repeated, why does he not do so before the Standing Committee that has been authorized to deal with all of the Estimates of the Department?


STANDING COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would say with respect to the well experienced Deputy Prime Minister that the public is not aware of Citation 359 but is aware of contradictions in statements from that side of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Is the Deputy Prime Minister now telling us that if the Standing Committee on Fisheries is prepared to examine this matter, he will make available to that committee Mr. Anderson, other employees of the Prime Minister's Office and employees of the Department of Fisheries, along with their documents, to explain the obvious contradictions with which the public is fed up, regarding this entire matter?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the only really glaring conflict between two national figures of which I am aware has already been brought to the attention of the House by the Prime Minister, and that was when the then Prime Minister Trudeau responded that the now Leader of the Opposition was surely misrepresenting events.


Ms. Copps:: Cover up.


Erik Nielsen: If the Hon. Member is so interested in the fisheries problem-


Some Hon. Members:: Cover up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mulroneygate.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, I am sure it is difficult for others if the noise is such that I cannot hear the answers.


Erik Nielsen: I never thought that I would have any difficulty being heard, Mr. Speaker.
If the Hon. Member is genuinely interested in the fishery, he will keep track of events as they are occurring with respect to the organization of the Standing Committee. If he were doing that, he would know that arrangements are being made for a briefing of the Standing Committee members by the
Department. I would urge him to stay in town, attend those meetings and bring himself up to date.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-CULTURAL INDUSTRIES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The U.S. trade representative responsible for Canada, William Merkin, has now followed the path of Ambassador Niles by specifically mentioning Canadian control in book publishing as a policy the U.S. wishes to change through free trade negotiations. Will the Government take the opportunity to make it crystal clear to the Americans that our cultural industries including book publishing, movies, radio and t.v. are excluded from the forthcoming negotiations, or is the Government going to permit U.S. officials to-


Mr. Speaker:: That question is very long.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make it crystal clear again that Canada's cultural identity and integrity are not negotiable.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: The Minister has used the same phrase which causes the same confusion in the cultural industries of the country. Why is it that the Government is being so weak willed on this issue when last week the provinces unanimously indicated that the cultural industries, not cultural integrity, should be left out of these negotiations? Why is it so weak willed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may recall, and certainly other members of his Party would, that it was in 1979 under a Progressive Conservative national Government that, for the first time, the public policy of Canada began to address directly the importance of cultural industries as industries contributing to the growth of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That was the commitment of this Party at that time. That is our commitment now and will be our commitment in the future. What we are looking to is a Canada that is not only culturally stronger but a Canada that is economically stronger. We believe that involves taking initiatives-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.
October 2, 1985


BANKS AND BANKING
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. After the March 25 bail-out of the Canadian Commercial Bank, the Government assured us on many occasions that the bank was viable. However, by the end of July the Government had reduced its own deposits at that bank from $30 million to $11.6 million. Why?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the story as published this morning was accurate. It indicated that Government deposits are spread throughout the banking system according to a formula. It indicated that those deposits were at a level of 0.563 within the banking system in the spring and that they remained at that level until August as Government balances went down.


GOVERNMENT PRACTICE
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Government has powers to change formulae. The Government encouraged other depositors to keep their money in the bank to prop it up. Why did the Government maintain normal practice in an abnormal situation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is not the job of the Receiver General to maintain liquidity within the banking system. It is the job of the Bank of Canada, which is exactly what it did.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-LUMBER EXPORTS
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday U.S. Ambassador Niles encouraged Canadian lumber producers to join in an unlawful combine voluntarily to restrain their exports to the U.S. Meanwhile leaders of the U.S. Congress are insisting that limitation of Canadian lumber exports must precede negotiation of any free trade agreement with Canada. Will the Minister remind the U.S. Ambassador and his Government that calls for illegal restraints on exports are incompatitible with an open and fair trading relationship between our two countries?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check to see whether or not the Hon. Member's characterization of the illegality of the proposal is correct. If it is, then of course I will convey it.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday people in the industry in Thunder Bay certainly thought such suggestions were illegal.
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED TRADE PROMOTION IN UNITED STATES
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, in responding to a question from the Hon. Member for Skeena a couple of weeks ago the Minister recognized the need to take the battle for Canadian lumber exports outside Congress-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question and not a new preamble, please?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, what can the Minister tell us with respect to any actions he has taken since two weeks ago with respect to taking the battle for Canadian lumber exports to the United States outside Congress and across the country to builders, realtors, and consumers of Canadian lumber, to encourage them to put pressure on members of Congress to change their minds with respect to Canadian lumber exports?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated the other day we are, in fact, embarking on that type of program with respect to lumber and to other questions which involve a threat to the livelihood of Canadians. I cannot provide all the details; 1 do not have them at hand. However, I will get them to the Hon. Member.
I would like to make two points quickly. First, it would be helpful if Members of this House in all Parties would join us in this effort. Second, the Hon. Member identifies precisely the difficulty we now face. There is not only the very major and important challenge to the lumber industry, there are 300 to 400 protectionist Bills in the U.S. Congress which today threaten existing Canadian jobs. This Government wants to protect those existing Canadian jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BANKS AND BANKING
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last Friday morning at his press conference the Prime Minister repeated his commitment to have the Canadian Commercial Bank and Northland Bank matters studied by a parliamentary committee. Yet the following Monday morning he appointed the Estey Commission. Will the Prime Minister tell the House why he did not carry out his commitment? Was it because last Friday afternoon both opposition House Leaders confirmed publicly to the press that they wanted to have the Northland and Canadian Commercial Banks matter studied by a parliamentary committee? Is that why he conveniently forgot his oft-stated commitment that Parliament should look into this serious matter?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 2, 1985
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the week, I believe it was Wednesday, some of our hon. friends from the New Democratic Party suggested that, perhaps, the best and most objective manner by which this important matter could be handled would be through a judicial inquiry. That was one of my suggestions made and considered by the Government. The decision to appoint the Commission of Inquiry headed by Mr. Justice Estey, a jurist of uncommon distinction, was in the interests of all of the facts being brought out in a fair and appropriate manner.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago the Prime Minister, I believe at Baie Comeau, told the press that he not only wanted to see this matter looked into by a parliamentary committee but he even wanted to see it on television. What has happened to his oft-stated belief that Parliament should be enhanced in reputation and activity? Why has he gone back not only on his statement about Parliament but given a slap in the face to the Conservative Chairman of the Finance Committee and the Conservative majority on that committee? Why does he not have any confidence in them, much less-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is very long for a supplementary question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious, if not to the Hon. Member, then at least to the entire country, that the irresponsible and dilatory conduct of the Opposition has prevented an objective examination of this matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: There can be no doubt about the vexatious, frivolous, and irresponsible behaviour of the Opposition with regard to this matter, as a result of which the Government appointed Mr. Justice Estey with the broadest possible terms of reference so that the full truth can come out, including the conduct of everyone involved and the policies that went into the matter. Mr. Justice Estey will put the spotlight on those people who are responsible.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-PROJECTED IMPACT ON AGRICULTURE IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the matter of enhanced trade. In the Province of Saskatchewan there has been a great deal of fear fostered and even promoted, I suspect, by the New Democratic Party with
respect to the impact of free trade on agriculture. Will the Minister explain to the House the projected impact of a new trade agreement on agriculture in the Province of Saskatchewan?


Ian Deans: Hypothetical! Give him a hypothetical answer.


Mr. Crosbie:: Yours is a hypothetical Party.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I was faced with a similar question in the House of Commons when I made it clear that, as a Member of Parliament from western Canada, I understand the harm which has been done in the past to the agricultural industry by certain trading arrangements which were entered into. The determination of this Government is to ensure that if there are new trading negotiations with the United States we will act in ways which will ensure not only the present viability, but a much greater viability, of Canadian agriculture as a result of those talks.
Agriculture, farmers and ranchers, like the rest of Canadians, have an interest in a strong economy. That economy is threatened by protectionism now. We intend to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture my question is for the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. My question is with respect to the drought disaster relief for the Prairies. Will the Minister tell us if the Government is planning to pay the $50 per acre in relief which has been suggested, or does the Government have a more flexible formula? What will be the federal-provincial contributions to those payments? When can farmers expect those payments?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, phase two of the recommendations of the committee chaired by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia was to have been reported at the end of last month. However, as the Hon. Member opposite will know, conditions have changed very much on the Prairies. There is now a severe problem with respect to harvesting the crop. There has been a tremendous amount of rain. We are waiting to see what will happen over the next couple of weeks to see what type of assistance will be necessary, since conditions have changed so drastically over the past six weeks as a result of the weather.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, a second phase, if you wish, or even a third phase, of that disaster relief was with respect to a moratorium being placed
October 2, 1985

on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures. Could the Minister tell us if the Government is allowing the interest on FCC loans to pile up, or is it also being "moratoriumed"?
[DOT] (M50)


Some Hon. Members:: "Moratoriumed"?


An Hon. Member:: That must be a western expression.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I think the Member, in one of his previous incarnations, was a teacher. I do not know whether he was an English teacher and wants to coin some new words.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: John Diefenbaker would be proud.


Charles James Mayer: The Minister of Agriculture has put a moratari-um on farm foreclosures by the FCC. I do not think anything has been ruled out pending the report of the FCC as to what should be done regarding farm financing. As I said, the Minister is looking for suggestions from right across the country and we are still waiting to hear from many people involved.
Regarding the previous question, I am also informed that the committee chaired by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia will be meeting in Regina tomorrow to discuss some of the very things-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will have Statements by Ministers later.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister tell us whether he gave his blessing in advance to the tax ruling which permitted the acquisition of the assets of Gulf Canada?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if I might attempt to respond to the Hon. Member, I thought I answered that question last Thursday. I am sure he realizes that this type of question involves the very fundamental principle of confidentiality which is so much a part of our income tax jurisprudence and these matters cannot be discussed.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER REPLY
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I find that quite astonishing. I simply asked-


Some Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: I simply asked whether the Prime Minister of this country gave his blessing to a tax ruling which may have cost Canadian taxpayers $1 billion, in advance of that ruling
Oral Questions
being issued. I do not see how the Minister of National Revenue can reply to such a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald James Johnston: Can I not hear from the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Oh, that is the supplementary? All right.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the inference in that question is totally unworthy of the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Yes or no.


AIRPORTS
Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Transport. Could the Minister give her officials instructions that at Uplands Airport in Ottawa, passengers arriving and leaving by car be allowed to use the lane next to the airport? Right now, the handicapped, the elderly and young children have to cross two lanes. Could she also ask her officials to use the airport at Gatineau while work on the expansion project is going on, and perhaps they could make a habit of this and make the airport-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is quite long enough.


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her question, in which she has pinpointed a situation we all encounter when we have to get on the plane in Ottawa. Current construction has created a problem for passengers when they get out of their cars to enter the airport. I believe that in the circumstances, we must make every effort to correct a situation that makes things particularly difficult for the elderly and the handicapped.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.
Yesterday in Montreal I met with the Coalition des femmes pour les allocations familiales. Is the Prime Minister aware of

October 2, 1985
Oral Questions
this coalition of more than one million Quebec women? Does he know that the coalition is a strong advocate of complete indexation of family allowances and full respect for the principle of universality?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the coalition and I happen to know as well that a good many of those Quebec women have said how favourably impressed they were with our tax credit program under which the more destitute stand to gain increased benefits.


An Hon. Member:: No, it is not true!


An Hon. Member:: Yes, it is true!


ELECTION DEBATE
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the women at this coalition meeting in Montreal yesterday quoted to me the words of the Prime Minister: "Yes, I can give you the assurance that no social program at all affecting anyone in need shall be touched-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question?


Lynn McDonald: Yes, I do: "-by a Progressive Conservative Government." Will the Prime Minister, who surely remembers these words from the women's debate in the summer of 1984, concede now that at that time he was lying to the people of Canada about the family allowances?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Calgary East.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns a serious matter, the bombing of Tunis by Israel. Could the Minister indicate to the House whether this situation is going to compromise the peace initiatives in the Middle East?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, Canada has been, through the years, a strong and good friend of the State of Israel and we always will be.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is precisely because of the strength of that friendship that we feel compelled to deplore the bombing in Tunis. I think it goes without saying that this event underlines how important it is for all of us to contribute
in any way we can to the peaceful resolution of disputes in that region.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. With the presence today in the gallery of the President of the Organizational Society of Spouses-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -I would like to ask the Minister why he has denied military spouses, who have been trying to organize for almost a year to fight for their concerns about traffic safety, rental costs and dental plans, the right to organize, suggesting that instead they would be violating the Queen's Regulations and Orders?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there is a long and honoured tradition in Canada that political activity and the military do not mix, and they ought not to. As to the fundamental concerns about traffic safety and what have you that this group is interested in, there is no prohibition against approaching military spouses in this regard. Indeed, when the group approached CFB Calgary, the commander said to go ahead and talk to the spouses on the base. The spouses at CFB Calgary were not interested in this political action group, so it is wrong to suggest they have been denied that kind of access.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I asked my question of the Minister because I wanted the facts. I did not ask his sidekick.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ACCESS TO FAMILY PLANNING INFORMATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the Minister why military spouses have not only been denied the right to organize on these fundamental issues, they have been denied the right to access family planning information on the base and they have further been denied the right on certain bases even to organize social functions like Tupperware parties. 1 would like to ask the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: That was a question, I thought.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. The Hon. Member is entitled to put a question and have it answered in the absence of noise.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Can I finish my question?
October 2, 1985

Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that I have nothing against Tupperware parties. Absolutely nothing. I also think the Hon. Member would be showing more respect for the House if she had her facts right-


Sheila Maureen Copps: I have my facts right.


Harvie Andre: -and put the questions properly when she does.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The organization is here in the gallery today; they have the facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Shhh!


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FINANCING
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He is aware that present legislation which allows Established Programs Financing for equalization, medicare, and post-secondary education continues to 1987. Would the Prime Minister confirm that when the Minister of Finance met with the provincial Finance Ministers last Thursday he announced that the federal Government plans to end that program one year early?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for the question to be repeated?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I presume this is not my supplementary. My question is directed to the Prime Minister but I am not sure which Minister should answer. Did the Minister of Finance indicate to the provincial Ministers of Finance last week that it is the intention of the federal Government to cut back next year on the funding to the provinces for medicare and post-secondary education?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there was a range of issues discussed including established programs funding, which would be normal at a meeting of Finance Ministers.


Mr. Speaker:: A very short supplementary, please.


FINANCE MINISTERS' DISCUSSIONS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since the Minister does not appear to know, who in his office should know whether or not the federal Minister of Finance made that threat to the provinces?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, in the course of conversations and statements in this House the Minister of Finance has indicated that there
Petitions
will not be cut-backs in the kind of spending programs that have been raised here today. We are working very hard to reduce the deficit, which we must do, but there will not be the kind of cut-backs that the Member is talking about.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, October 1, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of people from Delta, Richmond, and Vancouver, British Columbia, in which they indicate their opposition to the Government's plan to remove the full indexation provisions of the family allowance and make changes to the child tax credit. They ask that the Government, led by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) restore the full indexation of the family allowance and child tax credit.
I rise also, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of my riding of Sudbury who indicate that they as well are in opposition to the plans of the federal Government to deindex the family allowance and the child tax credit.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from Overbrook residents in my constituency of Ottawa-Vanier urging the Government to restore the full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.
I present to the House another petition signed by constituents of the riding of Gatineau in Quebec who also ask the Government to restore the full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, yet another petition signed by many residents of the riding of Ottawa-Vanier who plead with the Government to reconsider its position and restore the full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.

October 2, 1985
Petitions


Gilbert Chartrand: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting to the House two petitions from my constituents in Verdun-Saint-Paul, with more than 8,000 signatures.
Mr. Speaker, these petitioners, most of whom have young children, are appalled at the increasing number of crimes of a sexual nature committed against defenceless children. They are asking Parliament to impose capital punishment on persons found guilty of the crime of infanticide, aggravated by sexual assault.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of about 100 constituents from the federal riding of Algoma which calls upon the Government to reinstate full indexation of the family allowance.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of low-income earning women from Ottawa who ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to restore full indexation of the family allowance and the child tax credit.


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the Moose Jaw branch of the Saskatchewan Genealogical Society requesting the release of certain information from the 1891 census.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of individuals from across the country. Those petitioners state that the deindexation of the universal family allowance is an unfair attack on women and families. They further state that this attack will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that other tax increases in the May Budget will place an unfair burden on low and middle income earners. They petition the Government to overturn that decision.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. One is signed by people from my own riding of Broadview-Greenwood as well as from Spadina, East York, and a number of other Toronto constituencies. It is with regard to the family allowance. The petitioners believe that children are the responsibility of everyone and that parents should receive Government assistance of a value at least as high or higher than present family allowance levels. They, therefore, pray that Parliament will act to protect the cost of living increase in the family allowance.
The second petition I have is signed by a large number of people from the Ottawa area, most of whom are parents with low incomes. The petitioners ask the House to restore full indexation to the family allowance and child tax credit.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of my constituents and more specifically, those from the village of Saint-Louis-de-Kent.
These petitioners humbly pray the Government to refrain from proceeding with partial de-indexation of family allowances.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by petitioners from the riding of Ottawa Centre who beg the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and this Parliament not to deindex the family allowance, but to maintain it, particularly because of its importance to families on low incomes and to women who get the family allowance cheques which will be depleted by the moves of the Government.


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 292 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 292 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gauthier: 1.	What are the addresses of all properties, lands and/or buildings owned by the National Capital Commission and, in each case, what is the (a) lot size (ft) building size (c) number of units in each building where applicable, and is the property commercial or residential?
2.	Which of the properties owned by the NCC is (a) occupied or otherwise used by the Commission (ft) rented or otherwise occupied by others and, in each case, what is the name of the tenant or occupant?
3.	What is the market value of each of the NCC's properties if offered for (a) sale (ft) lease?
4.	What is the annual revenue (a) gross (ft) net derived from each property
owned by the NCC?	,
Return tabled.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
October 2, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, September 27, 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. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon on the dissolution of Canagrex. When discussing the issue of Canagrex we should remind ourselves of the commitment that the Government made to the farmers of our country last year. When it came to making promises to the agricultural sector, the Tories did not spare any. They promised the farmers of this country just about everything. The Conservatives made no less than 20 different promises to the farmers of Canada. These are listed in the convenient booklet which I have entitled Three Hundred and Thirty-eight Tory Promises, which I think 1 have spoken to you about on a few previous occasions, Mr. Speaker. However, at no time did the Conservatives speak of the abolition of Canagrex. As a matter of fact, they promised to improve the farming sector. The Conservatives promised to establish boards. They promised greater assistance to the agricultural college. They promised to refinance farms and, as the Hon. Member opposite will know, they promised a farm review board and amendments to the Grain Stabilization Act. In other words, the Conservatives promised just about everything to the farmers of this country.
However, the first thing that farmers were subjected to after the election was a massive set of cut-backs. On November 8-
Canagrex Dissolution Act
a day which is normally known as "Black Thursday"-the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) launched his first hatchet job on the taxpayers of Canada with his massive cut-backs in agriculture and other sectors. One of those cut-backs announced in the statement of last November 8 was specifically the cut involving the Crown corporation of Canagrex.
During the deliberations of the Agriculture Committee last winter, members of the committee had an opportunity to interview the Chairman and members of the Board of Directors of Canagrex Corporation. We asked members of the board if they believed that this corporation would be useful, recognizing that it had been cut off by the Government in its embryonic stage. Canagrex had never been given a chance to get off the ground and seriously attempt to sell Canadian products abroad. Just as it was beginning, it was cut by a radical, right-wing Conservative Party which believes that the Government should not be involved in ventures like Canagrex. The Government believes that its Tory right-wing philosophy is appropriate, that is that farmers and others who are best able to fend for themselves will do all right while others will disappear. The farmers of this country do not agree. They have said repeatedly through the various farm organizations, such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Farmers' Union, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and others, that the Canagrex Corporation was never given a fair chance by the Tories.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Government is not concerned about those who are unable to manage at times without such assistance, it essentially broke its promise to the people of Canada. Not only did the Government break the commitments made by the Conservative Party, it broke those commitments made by the preceding Government when the Canagrex Corporation was formed. Many employees who came from the private sector and other areas of Government had joined that organization. In my opinion, that organization had a high level of expertise, with high calibre people who were well able to lead that Crown corporation and make it work to ensure that Canada has a good and strong international marketing arm in the area of agriculture.
During the last year we have witnessed deterioration of the agricultural sector. We have seen those involved in pork and beef production having to contend with greater international pressures. People in the beef industry are competing against imports from the European Community that are robbing Canadian farmers of their market. Pork producers in Canada were not only subjected to very low prices domestically, they have also had to deal with countervails from the United States of America against Canadian pork that was exported to that country. That has created a very difficult situation for Canadian farmers in the last year.
If ever Canadians farmers needed all the help they could get, including appropriate marketing tools, it is precisely now. At a time when prices are very low, we could use an expanded external market for our products. At a time when our farmers are facing these difficulties, a better tool for marketing our products could potentially bring higher returns.

October 2, 1985
Canagrex Dissolution Act
Let us examine what other countries are doing. When one watches television advertisements for such things as New Zealand spring lamb and other products coming from other countries, it becomes evident that those countries obviously have means by which they encourage the export and marketing of products from those countries. They have done it so well that they have now acquired world-wide reputations for the marketing of their products. Why can we not have that kind of vision when we have such vast agricultural potential with the commodities we produce and have produced so well in the past, even if it detracts from the right-wing principles of the Tories to refuse to accept Government involvement in marketing and other areas?
It is difficult to understand why the small amount that will allegedly be saved by closing Canagrex will not be used elsewhere in the agricultural industry.
I see the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) in the House. He is responsible for dissolving Canagrex and cutting the subsidies in other areas of agriculture. I understand that he represents a riding with a rural component and I am sure that the people of his riding are concerned about these massive cut-backs in an area of our economy that needs all the help it can get right now.
If the Government believes in the benefits of cutting back on agricultural subsidies and dissolving Canagrex, one must ask why the Conservative Party did not campaign on that theme. Why did the Conservatives not tell the farmers of my riding that if they voted Conservative there will be cut-backs to their subsidies? That certainly was not advocated in my riding by my Conservative opponent. Being the objective person you are, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are faced with partisan rhetoric in your riding as well. Conservatives from across the country were telling farmers that the Liberals had not done enough for them and that only the Conservatives would rescue the farming industry.
I see the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holt-mann) here. I know he has a lot of farmers in his riding. I am sure if the President of the Treasury Board and other senior people in the Conservative caucus allowed him to speak he would say-I am sure he would because he is an honourable Member-that the farmers have been betrayed by the Tory Government. He is a Member who sits on the agricultural committee as I do. He would know that the actions of the Government have been most improper and have betrayed farmers.
There have been several other areas in which Conservatives have betrayed Canadians, such as for instance, in the area of farm finance, the agri-bond program which my Conservative opponent had put in front of my face during the whole of the last election campaign. Let me remind Hon. Members about the agri-bond program. Revisions to Section 31 of the Income Tax Act and the capital gains issue were three main issues in the election campaign of last summer affecting farmers.
The Conservatives, after the cut-backs of last November 8 in which they cut the Canagrex Corporation, announced at the same time that they would be releasing a Government paper outlining the reforms necessary to deal with the three issues I described a moment ago. When the so-called White Paper of the Minister of Finance appeared, it was nothing but a scathing attack on the farmers. It sort of said that farmers were well off and other such nonsense. You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the case and that the Government was not telling the truth, as has been the case of late.
The Standing Committee on Finance met and deliberated over this White Paper and issued a report. In that report, members of committee said there was a major problem in the area of farm finance. Not once did the committee recommend cuts; it recommended help. We advocated a system of agribonds, revisions to the Income Tax Act, as well as the complete removal of capital gains for farms that were to be used only for farmland in the future. What happened, Mr. Speaker? We heard of the removal of capital gains for everybody, including those who wanted to sell yachts, castles in Spain, horses in Kentucky and other things. This will only partly assist farmers but it will benefit the rich investing in all kinds of other things that I have described.
In terms of meaningful assistance to keep farmers in the farming business, there was not word in the Budget of the Minister of Finance. The only thing the Minister of Finance has stated, along with his friend "Erik the Dreaded"-the Minister in charge of cut-backs-the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), a further set of cuts in the agricultural sector to condense and streamline, which is a euphemism for cut, other Government programs.
Farmers in my constituency after the Budget met through their local federation of agriculture and issued a resolution condemning the Budget. I presented that resolution in the House. I am sure you recall it vividly, Mr. Speaker, that resignation called upon the Minister of Finance to come to his senses and help the farmers the way the Conservatives promised last summer. It called upon the Conservatives not to keep cutting various programs, like Canagrex and other meaningful programs established by the previous Liberal Government. In so doing, we all hoped that the Minister of Finance, when he changed his mind on that other disaster in which he got himself involved-the cuts to senior citizen's pensions-would have the good sense to say, "I just did not make one mistake, I made more than one", and would take the golden opportunity to backpeddle and announce that he was going to inject a fair amount of funds into the agricultural sector. We hoped he would see the light and restore Canagrex, allowing it to function, and at least giving it a chance to market Canadian products internationally.
Farmers are feeling more and more the very difficult financial situation in which they find themselves. More and more they feel betrayed by a Government that promised during an election campaign that it would do major things to help out their industry. More and more farmers are going under. Pork producers in the constituency that I represent issued a resolu-
October 2, 1985

tion the other day that I want to read into the record. This motion was sent to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). It reads:
The Prescott County Pork Producers' Association requests that a national referendum be held in order to allow individual pork producers to freely express their opinion on the subject of supply management in their industry, all this in conformity with pledges made by the federal Government.
Further we wish to inform the authorities that they reject all systems that would not take into account regional disparities regarding the costs of production, and we reaffirm our solidarity with the arguments raised by the Federation des Producteurs de Pores du Quebec and by the Pork Producers Association of Ontario, such as Bruce County and others.
Clearly pork producers on supply management have asked for help. They want protection to ensure they have good prices. They do not want to be rich. They only want to have a decent living. Canagrex could have assisted in the international marketing of their products and, hopefully, provided to them that decent standard of living, which is all they were asking for, but again they have been betrayed by this Government.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, although the Hon. Member talked very clearly about the farmers, I do not believe he indicated how this lack of an agency would have an impact on his riding in particular, either in terms of what kinds of products are produced-and I am not that familiar with his riding-or in terms of consumers in his area and of not being able to have a full market abroad to sell agricultural products that would ensure a reasonable rate for products in Canada.


Don Boudria: Let me thank the Hon. Member for his question, Mr. Speaker. Much of the agricultural industry in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell consists of dairy, pork, beef, potatoes, some livestock feed, cereals and corn. By and large, that industry in my constituency is suffering quite a bit. Perhaps dairy producers are not suffering as much as others. Only a few years ago there was the view that a dairy producer did well. Now it is said that a dairy producer is not quite as badly off. It is a far different story from what it used to be. Nevertheless, others are worse off than dairy producers.
In fact, pork producers are the worst off. Recently we saw how being dependent on only one international market can affect that industry. I draw the attention of the House to the threat of and the subsequent countervail by the United States of America against pork products which we sell abroad. That countervail had the effect of reducing the price of Canadian pork. It also had a depressing effect upon the market. Prices went down somewhere in the area of twice the countervail rate. That countervail rate varied between 3.5 cents and a little over 5 cents per pound, but the depressing effect of the countervail on the market was almost twice that amount. It understandably created a form of panic in the industry. People were wondering what would happen, whether there would be subsequent increases in the countervail charge and so on.
I recognize that the area which I represent is a part of Ontario where the cost of pork production is greater than in other areas. The southwestern part of the province produces pork for perhaps 4 cents to 5 cents per pound cheaper. Of
Canagrex Dissolution Act
course there are differences, depending upon the specific way in which individuals run their farming operations. Eastern Ontario already had a smaller profit margin because of higher freight costs, food costs and so on. Therefore that countervail duty resulted in an even further loss. In other words, the disaster was accelerated.
In direct response to the Hon. Member's question let me say that if we had a good, strong network to market agricultural products world-wide, we would not be so dependent upon one market and we would be able to sell more. Those are not my comments; those are the comments of representatives of various agricultural federations who appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Of all the groups which appeared, none subscribed to the view that Canagrex should be abolished.
If the Conservatives purport to speak for Canadian farmers, how can they reconcile closing down Canagrex when there is not one agricultural group, of which I know, that agrees with their view? One can only conclude that it is the philosophical view of the Conservatives to get out of this business or not to be involved. It is unusual that they have a different view when it comes to bailing out some of their rich friends such as bankers and other groups in society like people purchasing oil companies, as we saw last week. Of course that will involve an expenditure far greater than the cost of the retention of Canagrex. Now we know the priorities of the Government.


Mr. Holtmann:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but rise to make a few comments on the speech of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and his idea that he knew what I would say regarding the termination of Canagrex. Apparently he knew how I felt about my Party. He indicated that I would condemn my Party for taking the actions it has taken. I tell the Hon. Member that I support the termination of Canagrex. In fact, the producers and farmers of my area do as well. They did not like seeing another glorified, bureaucratic, very expensive nightmare organization which had no idea as to what it would sell, where it would sell, when it would sell or any such thing. The Hon. Member seems to think that it was a miracle for farmers. From where did he get that dreamy, "schemey" idea? It was never indicated in the formation of Canagrex what it was able to accomplish, although a lot of money was assigned to the things it might be able to do. The Hon. Member used broad statements. He said that it would probably make farmers rich and that it would be their salvation. Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? Also he said that we should have given it a chance.
The past administration cost Canadians billions of dollars. We were close to $180 billion in debt as a result of giving such programs a chance and we had the highest unemployment rate ever. That is the Liberal idea of trying another program. Instead of only $180 billion, I suppose we would have hit the $250 billion mark by now, had they still been in power. That is the reason for the attitude of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell not having any merit in form. It is the typical attitude. He decided what I thought about the particular Bill. He must be a soothsayer. Perhaps he would have predicted the

October 2, 1985
Criminal Code
Ides of March, had he had the chance. I just wanted to clarify his statements about what I thought.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among House Leaders with regard to the order of business for today. We have agreed-and I think Your Honour will find that disposition in the House-to interrupt this interesting debate on Bill C-42 and move to another item until its conclusion, at which time we would refer it back to the debate in question. I am referring to Bill C-77, an Act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to pari-mutuel betting.
In connection with that change of business, there has been further discussion with respect to the disposition of the Bill. I think Your Honour will find unanimous consent to receive the following motion and to accept it without debate. The motion reads as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, when the Order of the Day for the second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-77, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (pari-mutuel betting), is called and is disposed of this day, it shall stand referred to a Committee of the Whole; and
Provided that no later than the end of the time provided for the consideration of Government Business this day, the Speaker shall interrupt, if necessary, any proceedings then before the House and shall put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the then remaining stages of the said Bill without further debate or amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion of the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Is there unanimous consent to accept it?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-77, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (parimutuel betting), be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, certainly it is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Government on Bill C-77. I think a couple of things need to be said. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, with a name like I have, I think it is entirely appropriate that I should speak to this Bill. Aside from that, though, I have had a fair amount to do with horses and at least a little to do with racing.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I believe one of the things of which Canadians are not generally aware is the size and importance of the racing industry. It is an extremely large industry which generates in the neighbourhood of $1.5 billion a year. It employs something like 40,000 permanent employees and, according to the figures I have, approximately 13 million people attended at race-tracks last year which is more than the attendance at professional hockey, football and baseball games put together. I am sure that a lot of people are unaware of the size and significance of this industry.
It is also very much of a renewable resource. What we are attempting to do today is to pass some amendments to the Act which is presently in place which will provide for a better operation for everyone concerned.
The changes are designed to stimulate the economic health of all segments of the racing industry in Canada, and to ensure fair racing for the betting public. To enhance the marketing power of the sector, we would permit Canadians to place legal bets in Canada on foreign races such as the popular and prestigious Kentucky Derby, the Belmont Stakes, the Preak-ness and others and, when feasible, important races in Europe and even in Japan. I want to assure Hon. Members that because we will permit betting on foreign races, we will not in any way relax Canada's stringent drug control standards. The number and quality of foreign races offered to Canadian bettors will be regulated to ensure that betting on races abroad does not displace live racing in Canada.
All money bet on foreign races will stay in Canada. It will increase revenues for both the tracks, the horsemen and, through them, all sectors of the industry. Racing associations will be able to set and adjust the percentage of the betting dollar they deduct up to the level established in regulations. Most associations split these revenues with the horsemen as prize money on a fifty-fifty basis.
To provide more comfort and convenience for the public, racing associations will be permitted to use other buildings on their property adjacent to the track for the purposes of parimutuel betting. In addition, they will be permitted to broadcast their own races and associated betting data live on television. The change will remove the uncertainty as to the legality of this common practice.
I want to assure those who may feel that the Government is in any way encouraging gambling, that by legalizing betting on foreign races, we are ensuring that the revenues which at present have the potential to leave Canada, will stay in Canada to help support the industry.
The proposed changes will also discourage illegal bookmaking. Such betting will contribute to provincial and federal tax revenues through the taxes paid by racing associations. The federal levy, not to exceed 1 per cent on all bets, remains constant. Agriculture Canada's racetrack division conducts all drug testing on horses, videotapes of all pari-mutuel races, and carries out other necessary racetrack supervision to ensure
October 2, 1985

protection for the public on a complete cost recovery basis financed by the levy.
Other amendments to Section 188 to bring regulations into line with modern communications technology and veterinary practices. For example, videotape will replace film as the medium for recording races as an aid to officials.
Tests on other bodily substances such as blood will be officially added to the urine and saliva tests conducted routinely on all racehorses. Regulations will now allow analysis of body tissues from horses which die immediately before, during or after a race.
Other clarifications include the definition of a racing association as an association which actually conducts horseracing, and not merely has racing as its purpose, or one of its purposes. Essentially, these changes are good housekeeping. They are designed to ensure that our legalization reflects reality, protects the public and does not inhibit the viability and potential of the industry.
Race-tracks, as I said, are important economic generators in many of the smaller communities right across the country. I think it is important to mention, Mr. Speaker, that we have racing basically throughout the country, especially during the summer season when there are a lot of smaller fairs which have, as part of their attraction, pari-mutuel betting. Those are my comments on second reading, thank you.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-77, which is before us today, is designed to expand the arrangements for betting at Canadian race-tracks, to provide for broadcasts of races taking place in the United States or in other countries and to allow betting on them here in Canada.
I think that people who are concerned about gambling could well be concerned that this will actually increase the amount of gambling which takes place in our country. However, I think we have to balance that with the prospect that this will be gambling under a controlled situation at Canadian racetracks rather than people going to the United States. I am told that something like $157,000 was wagered on the Kentucky Derby by Canadians. It has been found that on important race days in the United States, the number of people attending our race-tracks is dramatically reduced. As the Minister indicated, there are something like 40,000 people involved in the race-track industry, and it is one of the major sporting events in the country.
This legislation before us today would provide for the broadcasts of races in other countries at tracks in Canada at a time when live races are taking place here. I have been assured by the Department of Agriculture that this will be a controlled situation and that there will be regulations as to the number of races which are carried in this way.
I also believe it is important that the legislation which now exists is tied in to meet modern day standards with regard to the use of videotape as opposed to fdm, and with respect to the technical aspect of blood tests and body fluid tests which are carried out on the racehorse. I believe the Department of Agriculture which regulates these horse races which are tele-
Criminal Code
vised, must take into account the over-all impact on the nearby tracks. For instance, I am told that when live races are carried on television in Toronto, it does have a negative impact on the turnout at the Five tracks involved in the jockey club. So I think it is important there be some equity exercised in the operation of this inter-track racing arrangement which would now take place.
I believe those are the only items which I want to mention. I understand that the Minister is going to be proposing amendments at the committee of the whole stage. I hope he will be able to explain the provisions of that amendment. So with those few comments, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we are agreeable to see this Bill passed through committee of the whole stage.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on the "sin" Bill. It reminds me of a story of a chap who was at a race-track. He was standing in the pari-mutuel line to buy a ticket. He was at the $100 win window. There were six horses in the race. He said to the clerk at the window, "I want to put $500 on number six to win". The teller cranked out the ticket, but the fellow behind him tapped him on his shoulder and said, "Look, buddy, number six is not going to win." The guy said, "Oh, yeah?" So he said to the clerk, "Give me another 500 bucks on number six to win." The guy taps him on the shoulder again and says, "Look, what's the matter with you? Are you crazy? Number six can't win". The guy says, "Yeah? Give me another 500 bucks on number six to win". The other guy got completely frustrated and said, "Look, I own number six and I have told the jockey we're only out for a ride today". The guy turned around and said, "Well, this is going to be one heck of a slow race. I own the other five".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I do not want my remarks to be interpreted as those of a socialist arguing for sin.


John Kenneth Gormley: We were waiting to see what you were going
to do.


John R. Rodriguez: I do not want it to appear as though we socialists who believe in economic planning would depend upon the exigencies of betting. I would like to lay odds of Five to one that Members of the House cannot tell me what the Government will get on the 1 per cent on foreign races on which Canadians will bet.
I am not here to argue that betting is an essential source of income for the Government. However, I think pari-mutuel betting and horse racing in Canada is a civilized and accepted form of recreation. There is no doubt about that. Indeed, as far as I can tell, what this Bill attempts to do is to modernize betting to make sure that the regulations controlling it are in fact up to modern standards. These things include what happens when a horse drops dead after it Finishes a race. It provides that we can examine body parts of the animal rather

October 2, 1985
Criminal Code
than do only urine or blood tests to detect foreign substances. Indeed, for some horses it does not matter. One can give them anything but there is no way they will win.
I do not think that I could oppose this Bill. After all, there is a race-track in my riding.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Conflict of interest?


John R. Rodriguez: Not at all. Indeed, it is a small "B" track which operates two days a week. In fact, it provides employment opportunities not only for those who are trainers but also for those with few skills. There are very few other opportunities for employment in that regard.
It will be possible for a track like the one to which I just referred to broadcast foreign races of a premier standard including the Kentucky Derby, the English Derby, the Grand National, the Belmont Stakes and the Preakness. I think that Canadians who want to place bets on those races ought to be able to do so at a facility in Canada. I do not think they should have to shuffle off to Buffalo to off-track bet on races occurring in the United States on which they cannot bet in Canada. I think we are now recognizing that betting here is a civilized thing and that such facilities should be available to Canadians.
The other day as I was preparing for this debate, I recognized the considerable investment there is in horse breeding and racing in Canada. For example, in 1983, investment capital in the race-track business was $2.2 billion. We have a surplus trade balance with the United States regarding the whole question of breeding and selling horses. For example, no one can forget Northern Dancer who, at 24 or 25 years of age, still services about 16 mares every year. In fact, all of his offspring has made Northern Dancer, a Canadian-bred stallion, the world's most famous stallion.
We must recognize, Mr. Speaker, that E. P. Taylor did not achieve all of that simply by pulling himself up by his own bootstraps. The provincial Government of Ontario made grants available to horse breeders to improve the breed and to make Canadian-bred horses very attractive to foreign markets. As a matter of fact, through the Income Tax Act under the agricultural section, the federal Government provides tax relief for those who are involved in the businesses of the breeding and racing of horses. I believe that we are Finally becoming more civilized with respect to the way we respond to the entire question of horse racing.
One good aspect of this Bill, of course, is the possibility that it would eliminate bookmaking. Bookies take bets and if they get too many heavy bets on one horse in a particular race, they lay them off on bookies in Buffalo or elsewhere in the United States. This Bill will effectively put the run on that kind of illegal activity, activity which is a part of organized crime. That is a step in the right direction.
We are not prepared to oppose this Bill. When it gets to committee of the whole, there are, however, some questions I would like to ask vis-a-vis betting on races across Canada.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to this discussion because I am
sure all of us are very conscious of the considerable number of Canadians who may be troubled by this kind of legislation. I think it is very important for the Parliament of Canada, particularly when there is all-Party support, to indicate why this kind of legislation is desirable.
This legislation certainly does not point to an indifference on the part of this Parliament to the moral problem that is faced by many compulsive gamblers, a problem which brings great unhappiness and misery to their families and dependants. However, we also know that there is very little good that comes from the law being used to prohibit and to restrain. There is, however, real good to be achieved from the law being used to control, to ensure honesty and wholesomeness and to ensure the fairness of the facility for all Canadians who wish to participate. I take it that that is the intent of this legislation.
On the negative side, I have some concern that this legislation, like so much legislation in the various provinces and in Parliament, still gives considerable weight to the interests of the major race tracks and confines its benefits to race tracks and the pari-mutuel facilities. There is some argument for that. However, I doubt that the expectations of the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Rodriguez) regarding the elimination of bookmaking will be fulfilled because of the limitations of this legislation. Notwithstanding that, these amendments are taking us a step forward, and perhaps at a later time we can consider a further step that will provide more facilities for the people of Canada who have an interest in this sport.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is as follows: Mr. Hnaty-shyn, for Mr. Crosbie and seconded by Mr. de Cotret, moves that Bill C-77, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (parimutuel betting) be now read a second time and, with unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, with unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-77, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (parimutuel betting).
On Clause 1-


Mr. Belsher:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister what sort of regulations he envisions being put in place to regulate the number of races which will be permitted to be used for this purpose which originate from outside the country.
October 2, 1985

I am sure it is not the intention of the Government to supplant the races which are taking place in Canada at the present time. While everyone knows the Kentucky Derby and similar races hold a great attraction, there are also many other famous races which take place in Europe and other countries. What sort of regulations does the Minister envision being put in place to prevent an over-abundance of races from outside the country?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member raises a valid question. The number of races held will be strictly limited by regulations set by the Minister. Presently, the number being considered is 40, which does not mean races held on 40 different days but 40 different races. For example, if we consider the Breeder Stakes to be held this fall, on one day there will be 10 races covered. We are certainly not looking to a proliferation of races whereby Canadians will be allowed to bet on every race held anywhere. We are talking about the prestigious races. If we consider the number 40, then I believe that would satisfy most people with respect to the concern suggested by the import of the Hon. Member's question.
r


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, will the Minister indicate to the Committee of the Whole what percentage of winnings will be returned in the case of foreign races? Will it be the same formula which we have in place for domestic races or will it be a larger amount? A larger amount would give some sort of preference to Canadian races, if that is all possible. Will it be the existing rate which I understand to be somewhere in the vicinity of 80 per cent? Will that be the case for foreign races as well?


Charles James Mayer: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is precisely correct. The rules will be exactly the same as those which govern races presently held in Canada.


Don Boudria: Have any Canadian racehorse owners or race-track operators indicated any concern along the lines of the concern expressed by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East with respect to whether or not that move would encourage people to bet more on foreign races as opposed to Canadian ones, especially if there is no incentive to ensure that betting is encouraged on Canadian horses as opposed to foreign ones? Have there been any worries to that effect expressed by any of the groups concerned?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, that is a difficult question to answer. It is my understanding that track operators and owners, everyone, want this, not so much to make money but to see that the same type of percentage on return stays in Canada.
To return to the question raised by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East, that is a concern. I would like to assure the House that we are not looking to a wide proliferation of races; we are talking about prestigious races in the very strict sense of the word.


Don Boudria: I gather, then, if I can be so blunt, that this is almost a Kentucky Derby type of provision we are looking at. I
Criminal Code
conclude that there seems to be a great deal of money leaving the country and being bet elsewhere. Perhaps the Minister mentioned that in his opening remarks and I missed it. However, if that is the case, is there any estimate at the present time with respect to the amount of money which leaves Canada and is being bet on races such as the Derby and other races? I recognize that some of this may be illegal right now and it would be difficult to estimate. However, is there any type of estimate at all as to how much money we are losing right now as a result of not having the provisions of this Bill in place at the present time? In other words, how much will we gain as a result of this Bill being enacted? Does the Minister have any idea as to what amount is involved?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of sides to the question. There are some benefits which will flow to us in terms of the advertisement and promotion of the sport itself as a result of televising some of the prestigious races which are held outside the country.
In answer to the Hon. Member's first question, obviously what he suggests is illegal and the money leaves the country. There may be people in the industry who may be able to give the Hon. Member an estimate with respect to the amount of money. However, I certainly cannot. I have not even heard an estimate. If we could keep a percentage of that money in the country, under the same type of rules which exist in the racing industry now, then that will be of benefit to us. With respect to how much, I am certainly not able to begin to give an answer.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask a question with respect to the integrity of the whole pari-mutuel system. When a better goes to a race-track in Canada and bets, he is betting in the full knowledge that there are certain rules enforced by Agriculture Canada with respect to certain forbidden substances, such as drugs, which a horse can be given. For example, butazolidin is forbidden, and there are others. There are certain standards which we have which is a guarantee the bettor has when he goes to place a bet. If we are to allow Canadian bettors to bet on foreign races which are run on certain conditions in a foreign country, then we are not able to give the same guarantees. Thus, we are in a way short-changing the Canadian bettor, are we not?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, no, I do not think that is the case. There is no question that if you bet on a race run outside the country, you are going to bet on a race that is run in a different jurisdiction. However, it should also be recognized that we will not be allowing races to be televised and bet on in Canada unless they are run in accordance with similar or, at least, very strictly supervised rules, similar to what we have in place in Canada. On the one hand, it is a very good question; we cannot totlaly supervise. On the other hand, we can decide, if we think it is not going to be supervised properly, not to list it and carry it as far as pari-mutuel betting is concerned.


John R. Rodriguez: I also wonder about the odds. Will the pay-out be based on the pay-out shown on the tote board at the

October 2, 1985
Criminal Code
foreign track on the day of the race, or will it be determined and the odds established by the amount bet at the particular track in Canada on the particular race?


Charles James Mayer: The latter is correct. It will not be based on odds and betting outside the country, it will be based on what goes on here.


John R. Rodriguez: Regarding prestigious races in Canada at the moment, can a person bet on the Manitoba Derby at a track in Ontario?


Charles James Mayer: Yes.


John R. Rodriguez: How about telephone account betting? Can a person place a bet through the telephone account betting on a foreign race as envisaged in the Bill?


Charles James Mayer: I am informed that that is the situation in Manitoba and British Columbia but not in Ontario, as far as telephone betting is concerned.


Mr. Cook:: Mr. Chairman, I want to phrase this question carefully. Is the Minister aware that in British Columbia, when the Kentucky Derby was run in the first week of May at Long Acres race-track, approximately two hours from the Canadian border, approximately $500,000 was bet on that race alone? With the handle at that track, generally speaking one-third of their betting action is from Canada. In this case, because we were not permitted to have the Kentucky Derby at Exhibition Park in Vancouver, it is estimated that approximately $150,000 to $175,000 Canadians went south for bets on the Kentucky Derby. That is one of the good reasons for this legislation; Canadians will not be encouraged to cross the border at Detroit, Buffalo or Washington State to bet on some of the premier races. Was the Minister aware of that?


Charles James Mayer: No, I was not aware of that. I am sure my friends from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Nickel Belt, indeed the House in general, are glad to hear those figures. The illustrious Whip of our Party is certainly well-known in racing circles throughout the country. He has a keen interest in this sport as does, I might add, the Queen of our country who has a tremendous racing stable. It is truly a sport of kings and we are very pleased to have this information.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, we have established that the return on a dollar bet is 80 cents. That is, by the way, double the return on lotteries. The track and the provincial and federal Governments take 20 cents on the dollar. We all recognize the need to take 20 cents on the dollar. There are certain costs involved with live racing, for example, veterinarian and all sorts of other services which both Governments and the track provide. Given that, why could a greater percentage of the bettor's dollar not be returned to him on foreign races? Why is it essential for the Governments to take the maximum percentages when there are no costs involved for them? All they are doing is simply throwing a picture on the screen and the cashiers are taking the bets.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact, the same amount of supervision will go on. Agriculture Canada officials will be at the track supervising the betting and essentially carrying out the same kind of services they would provide if it was a race being run in Canada. Essentially we will be conducting the same kind of supervision, therefore the costs will be roughly the same.


John R. Rodriguez: Not exactly, Mr. Chairman. You do not have the in-stable supervision, the people who do the urine and saliva tests and all the rest. You do not have the circuit patrol. You do not have all these other services. Why do you need to take as big a return when you are not supplying the same amount of services?


Charles James Mayer: First of all, the question is valid but if you look at the scale of things, we are talking about something like 40 races throughout the year. I am told that there are approximately 46,000 races conducted in Canada. The number of races involved in this question is so insignificantly small that to adjust the percentage would not really make any sense. Just doing some quick arithmetic, I think that is one one-thousandth of the number of races conducted in Canada. If you look at it from that point of view, you will find that that is why the percentages will remain the same.


John R. Rodriguez: It is just a small point, Mr. Chairman, but in fact races like the Kentucky Derby, the Belmont and the Preakness, many of the breeder's stakes races, are broadcast on TV. So the betting public is sitting at home and they can watch the race. The coverage starts in some cases almost an hour before the race, or at least 30 minutes. People do not really need to go down to the race-track to watch it on the screen, they can pick up the phone and call in their bet.
I come back to the point that these races do not involve the same costs as live races, and therefore I would suggest that a greater return should be given to the bettor.


Charles James Mayer: Again the Hon. Member is talking about a very, very small amount of money. I would also point out that the federal Government does not have any jurisdiction over what goes on provincially in this respect. Given the small number of races we are talking about here, to have a different set of rules or guidelines does not seem to make a lot of sense.


John R. Rodriguez: The Government Whip mentioned that $500,000 alone in Canadian bets was placed on the Kentucky Derby. Can you imagine that across the country? Once this facility is provided to the bettor I am sure more people will take advantage of it. If you have 40 prestigious races a year, we can see that we are not talking about nickels and dimes. It is a considerable amount.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, if I heard the Government Whip correctly, he did not say $500,000; he said that was the amount bet, of which approximately one-third would be Canadian betting. The Hon. Member makes a good point, but it does cost a certain amount of money to supervise the races anyway. We will take the comments as notice because it is a
October 2, 1985

valid point. The Government is not looking for ways to make money from this. I think it is generally recognized by everyone that Agriculture Canada has done an exceptionally fine job of managing its jurisdiction in this area, and it will continue to do so. If there are some areas which Hon. Members suggest need to be looked at, they will be looked at.


John R. Rodriguez: Just to satisfy my curiosity, what is the rationale for the inclusion of the reference to being able to bet in a building that is within 900 metres of the grandstand, I presume? If you are going on site to bet, you go on site to bet. If you start going to 900 metres to bet, very shortly it will be 1,900 metres and then 6 kilometres. I think we will then end up with betting parlours and turf accountants as they have in Britain.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, the 900 metres is stipulated in the Act, and if we wish to change it we will have to come back to the House at which time I am sure the Hon. Member will raise his objections that we are moving further and further away. This is simply for the convenience of the people on the track. The facility has to be on the track. In order to ensure that it is on the track a distance of 900 metres was determined. Rest assured that it cannot be changed by regulation. It is part of the Bill, and in order for it to be changed we will have to come back to the House. I am sure that if we do want it changed the Hon. Member will raise some very legitimate objections at that time. There is no intention to change it. I am just reasurring him that it cannot be changed by regulation, as the Hon. Member knows from looking at the Act.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, if I understand this correctly, at the present time the federal Government's portion of a bet is eight-tenths of 1 per cent, or thereabouts, the provincial Government gets 7 cents of every dollar, 12.2 per cent of every dollar goes to the track and horses, and 80 per cent is the return on winnings. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has advocated that in the case of foreign races we should have a higher return on investment. I would like to express my disagreement with that to the Minister. We were discussing a while ago how we did not want to create any situation in which there would be no incentive to keep the money here. If we are creating an incentive to bet on horses outside the country, we are doing exactly the opposite of what we were all saying a little while ago. In other words, if you receive a high return on your investment by betting on horses outside the country, you are actually creating a circumstance that most Canadian track and horse owners are not going to be pleased with.
The only portions with which the Minister could be concerned are the eight-tenths of 1 per cent going to the federal Government or the 12.2 per cent going to the track and the horses. I do not think the federal Government would change the 7 per cent provincial share or, if it did, it would not be very well looked upon.
Of the 12.2 per cent which goes to the track and horses from races in Canada, is there a set breakdown of how much goes to
Criminal Code
each? In the case of a race run outside the country, does a portion go to that country in the form of royalties in any way shape or form for the owners of the horses there, or does it simply mean that there is more profit for the track owner here in those cases?


Charles James Mayer: There will have to be some arrangements made between the foreign track and the track here to split fees on whatever basis may be arrived at by the various tracks. I can also advise the Hon. Member that the fee varies from province to province. Some claim 7 cents as the Hon. Member said, and some claim as much as 10 cents.


Don Boudria: In the case of betting on races outside the country, am I to conclude that the 12.2 cents that goes to the track and horses in Canada now will be split in some way between the Canadian track and that of the other country? How do we know that the present formula of 80 per cent will be adequate if we do not know what return we will have to give to the track owner outside of the country? Or have we made preliminary arrangements with those tracks which the Minister has referred to as prestigious? If so, will we be able to accommodate that with the present structure of winnings to bets which we have right now?


Charles James Mayer: With regard to the 20 per cent that stays in the system, there would be negotiations between the track and the horse owners. I am informed that "split" is perhaps the wrong word to use and that "fee" would be more appropriate. There would be negotiations between the horseman and the track to decide how the remainder would be split up.


Don Boudria: Within the 12 cents?


Charles James Mayer: That is right. We have an amendment forthcoming that will address some of the legal aspects of allowing the track to set that fee.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Chairman, I have one question which I would like to have clarified. The Minister keeps talking about 40 races. In British Columbia we have a six-month thoroughbred racing season. We would be interested in the Queen's Plate, probably the Rothman's race, perhaps some of the major races from New York, and two or three races from California. Those races from California would be of no interest to eastern Canada. Due to the timing they would take place at eight o'clock or nine o'clock at night in the east when, generally speaking, tracks are not open. When you talk of 40 races, you are talking about 40 races which may or may not be picked up by various parts of the country at various times. It does not mean that any single racetrack is going to carry foreign races. In fact, I doubt that any of them would carry more than 10 or 15 in the entire season. Would you agree with that, Mr. Minister?


Charles James Mayer: Thank you for that well put question.


John R. Rodriguez: The answer is yes?

October 2, 1985
Criminal Code


Charles James Mayer: The answer is yes. I am getting all kinds of coaching from all sides of the House and I appreciate that, but the answer is obviously yes. Because we are such a diverse country there are areas of interest on the West Coast which would not interest people in the central part of Canada. That is entirely correct.


John R. Rodriguez: I presume that this also covers standard bred racing including such races as The Little Brown Jug. I see a nod from the Minister.


Charles James Mayer: Yes.


John R. Rodriguez: I disagree with my friend who said that if people got a bigger return on foreign races they would want to bet on them. I understand from the legislation that the particular races on which pari-mutuel betting would be allowed would have to be decided by the Minister. Is that correct?


Charles James Mayer: Yes, that is correct.


John R. Rodriguez: I presume there is some criteria that will be used to determine which ones are prestigious races as opposed to dog races. Can the Minister elaborate and tell us what sort of criteria will be used to indicate a prestigious form of race?


Charles James Mayer: Obviously there has to be a judgment. Again, I presume that the Minister would be relying for advice and input from people in the industry so that we would in fact know what determines the words "prestigious race". I agree with the Hon. Member. I think that some of the pacers and trotters, if you are talking about harness racing, are very exciting to watch. It is not exclusive to thoroughbreds, but standard breds as well.


John R. Rodriguez: Out of curiosity, the Bill provides for expanding the testing of bodily substances taken from horses in a race. I presume that that is one of the safeguards to protect the public. How does the Department update its testing procedures? It would seem to me that that is the kind of change that ought to have been made by regulation a long time ago.


Charles James Mayer: I think the Member is correct. We have a research farm and we are continually updating the testing procedure and trying to keep abreast with technology as it is expanded. However, I think the Member makes a very good point that there should be some room, possibly to have some of these procedures added on an ongoing basis without going to the House for amendments. I think he raises a good point.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[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:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) had approximately a minute and a half before the end of the period for questions and comments.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, when the order of the House was changed, I was about to respond to questions posed by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann). He indicated that I did not reflect his view when I expressed to the House that I knew him to be a Member who would oppose this Bill and favour more support for agriculture than what the Conservative Government was giving. I notice that he took objection to that. I am sorry that I credited the Member for Selkirk-Interlake with caring for agriculture. If he says he does not, then probably he does not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to speak to Bill C-42, the Bill to wind up Canagrex. When the Government was first elected we in the agricultural industry had great hopes because of the many promises to the agricultural sectors of the country. In many ways, these were very logical promises and suggestions that anyone who knew something about the agricultural industry would accept and support.
When the Conservatives formed the Government it was our hope that they would fulfil these promises and become the first Government in many years to take agriculture seriously. Many Conservative Members from the West were farmers in the past and had given the kind of voice to agricultural policies which we considered reasonable and worth while. We anticipated that they would be Members who would help farmers and the industry. Although there has been much talk, so far there have been few results from those promises.
The winding up of Canagrex was an unexpected result because the Government did not mention this policy during the election campaign. It is a direct blow to a number of farm groups who believed that they finally had an organization which would do something for the export of farm products. There is no doubt that even during its short tenure, Canagrex demonstrated a very important need for export assistance to the agriculture industry in Canada.
Of course, export assistance is not a new concept because most other sectors in Canada have specific bodies which are used to provide concrete and substantial help when they need it. Assistance to sell Canadian products abroad is common except in the agricultural industry. For instance, the industrial sector has the Export Development Corporation with a budget of approximately $20 bnillion for contingent liabilities with
October 2, 1985

which to provide specific financing to sell particular products in foreign markets. That financing is essentially speculative as the money is lent to the purchasing countries as insurance to help reduce any possible losses that might incur when selling abroad. The producers of military equipment and capital projects operate under another Crown corporation, the Canadian Commercial Corporation. It also provides specific assistance in order to implement projects abroad. Therefore, the idea that Canagrex was new and untried is false. In fact, the dissolution of Canagrex is a direct attack on the ability of the agricultural sector to export its products and develop markets abroad.
I know the Conservative Government in its statement on the wind-up of Canagrex said that other agencies are in place and that people attached to embassies can do the work. However, people have been attached to embassies for the last 25 or 30 years, and they have not succeeded in developing markets that we know can be developed.
Long before Canagrex, it was recognized that the agricultural community needed an instrument to attack the complex world of international trade. In fact, I looked at the history of Canagrex. It is interesting that the idea of an agricultural export agency was brought before this House during the Diefenbaker Government by the Hon. Member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) who was the Minister responsible in that Government. He suggested that it was time to put an agricultural export agency in place. This concept was discussed again by the Trudeau Government.
During the short-lived Clark Government, the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) prepared and had in place everything to go ahead with an agricultural export agency. Unfortunately, that Government did not stay in power long enough to put the agency in place. When the concept was brought forward later on, the present Minister of Agriculture actually supported the idea of the export agency. On December 9, 1980, we find on page 5540 of Hansard these words of the present Minister of Agriculture:
We have supported the need for such a structure since 1974. While we were in office the necessary cabinet document had been prepared. What has happened? Has someone canned Canagrex?


Don Boudria: Who said that?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The present Minister of Agriculture said that in 1980. During the period of time Canagrex was being debated in the House, the Conservative caucus supported it initially. However, some of the Conservatives friends in the export areas were a little concerned that an agency would cut into the possible development of markets of other agencies. Consequently over several months as the Bill was before the House and Committee, many of changes were made, a number of them at the behest of members of the Conservative caucus from across the country who felt there were some dangers in the Bill. Those dangers were taken out of the Bill and the Bill was passed in 1983.
Canagrex Dissolution Act
To go back to the need for Canagrex, it was quite apparent to people in the agricultural community that some sophisticated method, some agency, some expertise, was needed to develop agricultural markets around the world. An agency was needed to open new horizons for domestic producers in Canada.
When the then Minister of Agriculture suggested such an agency, he got support from all sides oi the House and from all areas of the agricultural industry. That support did not wane as the Bill was developed. It did not disappear after Canagrex was put in place. When this Government presented the windup of Canagrex before this House, the issue rose again. A number of farm groups came forward, stating they were disappointed that they were to lose what they considered, for the first time, to be an agency that dealt specifically with them and worked for them in the export world.
In 1980 the idea of Canagrex finally started to bear fruit. A Bill was placed before the House early in 1981. During the parliamentary debate on Canagrex, as I mentioned, particular concern was expressed by some Opposition Members over one clause. I want to zero in on that clause because it seemed to be the basis of the opposition.
Opposition Members said that they feared legislation would be used by the Government to interfere in normal commercial trade. Others felt instruments already in place were being duplicated. During the time this Bill was before Committee, a number of amendments were brought forward. Those amendments were put in place to ensure the agency received plenty of guidance and scrutiny, both from the private and the public sectors; that it would engage in trade only on a state to state basis in the development of markets and that it would not interfere in any private development of trade. Other things were passed in the Bill.
That kinds of corporations have a tendency to grow like Topsy was another concern. People say they will do only a certain amount, but the net result is they do considerably more. They start at $12 million and before you know what happens, they hit $60 million. To be sure that kind of thing did not happen, that the agency did not invade the private sector and raise concerns, very sophisticated control was put in place. No Crown corporation was every established with as many controls or with as much authority and guidance as was Canagrex. Everything was done to make sure that Canagrex did not cut into the trade of the private sector or into any other market sector which might possibly be affected. Everything was done to make sure it would be financially responsible and that it would not expand beyond the references given within the Bill. In fact the Auditor General was given the authority to call a comprehensive audit at any time he felt that it was necessary, so there was no concern about the financial responsibility of this particular organization. It was the first time in Canadian legislation that any corporation or agency was so well controlled or financially regulated by the Government. The Auditor General felt that no other organization or agency was quite as well as scrutinized as Canagrex. It was a bit of a shock, not only to those of us in the House but to those in the
7266

October 2, 1985
Canagrex Dissolution Act
agricultural community, to find that it was to be wound down, after a substantial investment and after an auspicious start on the part of the corporation, in that it was starting to do some work and starting to sell products.
Mr. Glenn Flaten, who was chairman of the 11-member Board of Directors of Canagrex, had been the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and a member of numerous other agriculture-related associations and boards. He had an interest in ensuring that the board and its staff had control over what went on. He paid close attention to what happened in the debates in the House of Commons. He knew the concerns of Members of Parliament and of agricultural organizations. He was an excellent choice for chairman. The board worked very closely with the executives. Its members travelled and established many contacts. They worked particularly hard and particularly quickly. The Bill was passed in May, 1984, and toward the end of the following summer the money was put in place for the organization. In fact, an August 29 press release indicated that a $15 million line of credit had been arranged with a Cuban organization for sales and that many other contacts had been made, but of course time was running out. It is interesting to note that in September, when the new Government came into power, it immediately withheld the money voted by Parliament for this organization. As the company was beginning to operate and to show its value, the money was not available. Then, on November 8, 1984, without any consultation or examination, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicated in his economic statement that Canagrex was to disappear. Many farm organizations felt that they had been betrayed. They were consulted and made recommendations in favour of the development of Canagrex to help them sell their products. Suddenly, without examination, without a fair trial and without consultation, the Minister of Finance cancelled it, making a farce of the parliamentary system and of the consultative system. The Conservative Government allowed agriculture to drop to third or fourth place in Canadian trade. The Government is trying to develop trade, but it has refused to finance and has withdrawn from an active role in the one agency which could have helped around the world.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the House allows us an opportunity to learn more about our country. As I looked at the legislation affecting Canagrex and as I listened to my colleague's speech, I could not help but wonder whether there was a parallel. Is there a parallel between the agency which is now being eliminated by the Conservative Government and the Canadian Wheat Board in terms of their function as between Canadian producers and potential markets elsewhere in the world?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question, in that it gives me an opportunity to expand somewhat on the kind of structure which has been in place.
The Canadian Wheat Board is an agency of the Government and Canagrex is a Crown corporation. Technically they are somewhat different. As far as their mandates are concerned, there is much similarity. The Canadian Wheat Board has the responsibility to go out and sell grains and to develop markets to ensure an even flow of grain, as much as possible. Of course other factors are affected as well. Canagrex had eliminated from its responsibility grains which were under the auspices of the Canadian Wheat Board and other products already under other marketing boards. However, it had responsibilities in terms of any other product which could be considered an agricultural one. Honey, apples and other products which came under other boards were not affected. It could work with any of those boards to develop markets overseas. It was aimed at developing the agricultural market and working with existing marketing and producer boards. There is a marginal parallel. It was intended to help those boards.
I suppose one of our most sophisticated marketing boards is the Canadian Wheat Board. It does not need help in developing its market, although it can be prodded on occasion. I see that the Minister is present; we will prod him when it is necessary. The Canadian Wheat Board has very sophisticated marketing in place, and it can help those boards which do not.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the Hon. Member's speech. It was very interesting when he said that the Conservative Party had made an about-face. I find it strange that it would do this. I guess it was the first time in the last half hour that I heard about Conservatives changing their mind on a major issue.
What does the Hon. Member think could have possessed the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to change his mind from his good intentions in 1979 and shortly thereafter? Does he think that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), "Mike the Knife" as he is affectionately known to all of us, had anything to do with this twisting of opinion which seems to have happened? Once again the Tories have contradicted themselves. Would he like to comment on that?
[DOT] (WOO)


Stanley J. Hovdebo: We, of course, have to surmise the answer to that question. It is very uncharacteristic for the Conservatives to change their mind, as we all know.


Don Boudria: They haven't done it in the last half hour.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The Minister was no doubt in favour of an export marketing agent for agriculture, and the Party was in favour also, otherwise the Minister, who had been a Minister in the Clark Government, would not have brought it forward. I would think that to some extent the decision to cancel Canagrex was based more on the fact that the Conservatives had publicly opposed it during committee hearings, and across Canada, and felt that they had to follow through in some way even if, in the process of opposing it, they had done a lot of good with improvements and making it a very responsible agency. I have to give Hon. Members of the Conservative Party who were in committee at that time a lot of credit for picking out faults and getting the Government to change those areas about which they were concerned. We did not always
October 2, 1985

agree with those changes but if that was their concern, they did well.
I feel, therefore, that the cancellation of Canagrex is purely political. It is really a disaster because it is done without any basis. They did not look at how well it could do and how much good it could do for the country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any more questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to enter this debate, although I do feel that the Canagrex situation has been discussed many times. However, people are still wondering what happened to it. I think it boils down very simply to the fact that we had an agency which was spending somewhere in the area of $6 million and had $50 million worth of orders. I do not think we could call that very efficient.
One of the reasons I am entering into the debate today, Mr. Speaker, is because I am troubled by some of the things I have heard today. I believe this Government has been one of the most sensitive Goverments to the needs of farmers that this Parliament has seen for many years. I have a list in my hand, and I do not wish to go over them all for the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), of some 90 achievements of this Government since September 4, 1984.


Don Boudria: That must be plain paper you have in your hand.


James Eber Caldwell: I can read them, Mr. Speaker. This Government has spent somewhere in the area of $1.53 billion since the election on agricultural issues. I am not too sure we have the time to go through all of the excellent programs the Government has put forward.


Neil Young: Go for it.


James Eber Caldwell: I believe we are all very cognizant of the fact that we do have problems in agriculture today, but this Government and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) have faced up to them.
Perhaps I will read a few of the programs this Government has put into effect. As early as October 1, 1984, a $60 million federal-provincial prairie livestock drought assistance program was announced by the Minister. A few days later on October 17, 1984, $181,340 was granted through the Agricultural and Rural Development Subsidiary Agreement to Brookside Farms, B.C. On November 2, 1984, a $123 million final payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Program was announced. On November 5, 1984, the Minister of Agriculture announced that up to $627,286 in funding for projects under Agriculture Canada's new Crop Development Fund. Then, of course, the Minister showed his concern for the agriculture community. Many farmers were facing foreclosures due to mismanagement by the previous Government which had told farmers to go out and borrow, borrow, borrow and grow, grow, grow, and we will sell it. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, that
Canagrex Dissolution Act
the Canadian farmers are in the difficulties in which they are today. Some farmers took the advice of the Liberal Government over the past number of years and now they find themselves unable to pay back those tremendous debts incurred during that period of time. However, the Minister of Agriculture, as early as November 5, two months after the election, put a moratorium on FCC loans which helped the farmers at that time and, of course, he has done it again very recently.
On November 26, 1984, $15 million was given to help the grape growers in the Niagara Peninsula who were suffering from over-production. What were they supposed to do with their grapes? The Liberals have told them in the past what they could do with them. But this Government showed some compassion-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's nonsense, and you know it.


James Eber Caldwell: The Government showed some compassion and bought the crops of the grape growers.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Let them eat grapes.


James Eber Caldwell: I know it hurts. I am only down to number nine and I have 89 more to go.


Mr. Althouse:: What about the western grain stabilization?


James Eber Caldwell: We can talk a little about the western grain stabilization, if the Hon. Member likes, Mr. Speaker. Bill C-25 was the Western Grain Stabilization Act. The previous Government sat by for many years. It did not have the guts to put the stabilization program through. At that time it would have been much simpler to have a stabilization program in Canada than at the present time because each province had to develop its own programs in order to keep its farmers on the land. The federal Government sat back and said, "Let the provinces do it". Now we have a system whereby every province is top loading. It is almost impossible in some cases to get a national agreement. However, our Minister and this Government have decided that we are going to have an agreement. It will be the best agreement that can possibly be achieved at this present time. It would have been a lot easier had the previous Government moved on that type of legislation. We would not then be in the situation we are today.
I will just highlight some of the programs which had been announced by this Government. On November 30, 1984, a $3.3 million emergency cash advance under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act was made available. On December 3, 1984, it was announced that land was being purchased for the construction of a $10 million research centre on pest control in London, Ontario. On December 7, 1984, $200,000 worth of evaporated milk was donated by Canadian dairy farmers to relieve the starvation in Ethiopia. On December 10, 1984, the Minister of Agriculture announced the Farm Credit Corporation loan rates dropped by .75 per cent to 1 per cent and, of course, they are still going down.


Mr. Brightwell:: Four per cent over the year.

October 2, 1985
Canagrex Dissolution Act


James Eber Caldwell: It was 4 per cent over the past year. That is one of the things which this Government has done which the farmers of today certainly appreciate because there was nothing that was hurting them more than the high interest rates which were imposed upon them by the previous Government. As I pointed out before, that is the reason that agriculture has the problems it has today.
Farmers are as good at farming as they were then. The only problem is they could not pay the exorbitant interest rates which were put on to them by the previous Government.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Explain.


James Eber Caldwell: On December 20, 1984, Royal Assent was given to petroleum tax rebates which will save Canadian farmers nearly $100 million annually in operating costs. That was something which we promised during the election campaign and we lived up to it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why don't you talk about the 18-cents-a-gallon-increase in gas in the Budget?


James Eber Caldwell: I could go on but I know Hon. Members are getting-


Don Boudria: Please do.


James Eber Caldwell: I could give them a copy of this and they could examine it for themselves. It all adds up to $1.53 billion which this Government has spent on agriculture in Canada in the past year. That is something which has not been done by the Liberal Government for the past 15 years.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about Canagex?


James Eber Caldwell: Canagrex? That is very simple. Why did we get rid of Canagrex? Because it was not doing its job. Perhaps it is Liberal economics which says it is good for an organization to spend $6 million and to sell $50 million worth of goods.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Fifteen million dollars in the first year of operation was good marketing to open up the international markets.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member please address the Chair when making his remarks?


James Eber Caldwell: It is difficult to address the Chair with these kinds of interventions. I would point out that if the Hon. Member would like a copy of the list of 90 achievements of this Government over the past year, I would be happy to provide it to her. I am sure the list would make very interesting reading. If she read it, prhaps we would not hear the kinds of things we are hearing today.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the list presented by the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell) and I was not very surprised to notice that there was really no mention of any new initiatives in spending with the possible
exception of the $30-per-head cattle payments to western farmers in drought zones, and that initiative is a copy of a similar program that was in effect on an ad hoc basis in 1981. All of the other programs to which he referred would have provided the same level of service whether this was a Conservative Government, a Liberal Government or no Government. They are programs that have been in effect for years.
The grape program to which he referred was paid for under the Stabilization Act, something which he says his Government put into place. That is an old Act. It has a power which permits the Commodity Board to purchase products when they are in surplus supply so that farmers can have some money. The grape growers of this country have been protected by that action more than once and at least four or five times under previous administrations. I do not know exactly when the pay-outs occurred, but I recall that the grape growers have used that program many times in the past.
Other pay-outs including those under the Western Grain Stabilization Act are automatic payments which would occur whether this Government was in power, that Government was in power or a Government of our own was in power. Of the $1.5 million made available under the drought assistance to livestock, perhaps $30,000 to $40,000 was not initiated by the Government. That particular initiative required the making of an executive decision. I would point out that a similar decision was made under the previous Government and it has become almost an accepted practice that such an ad hoc form of aid will occur during drought season.
To portray $1.4 billion that the Hon. Member says has been paid out to help Canadian farmers as being money that would not have been paid out were it not for this Government is really not being fair or accurate since those programs have been established for many years and would have triggered pay-outs even if the House were not sitting. The way he is portraying this to the House is not accurate and I just wanted to make sure that the record was made clear.


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, I was not nearly finished reading my list. If the Hon. Member wants-


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about grapes?


James Eber Caldwell: I could keep on reading the list, but I will not do that. Just off the top of my head, I could mention the fact that this Government took an initiative to save UCO in Ontario, something which is now in a profitable position. How much has the capital gains tax exemption of $500,000 helped farmers? How much has 4 per cent and lower interest rates helped the Canadian farmer?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The UCO assistance came from the federal Government before you, you should keep your facts straight.


James Eber Caldwell: The Hon. Member should know-


Sheila Maureen Copps: I certainly know because I was in the provincial legislature at the time.
October 2, 1985


James Eber Caldwell: The Hon. Member should know that the Government came to the rescue of the UCO this past year.


Sheila Maureen Copps: And they did it under previous Liberal administrations so you should get your facts straight.


James Eber Caldwell: I think I know what the facts are. This Government put somewhere in the area of $7 million into the UCO program and UCO is now back on a profitable basis and serving the interests of the farmers of Ontario.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif), for questions or comments.


Mr. Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I think the comments made by the Hon. Member opposite are simply absurd. It is like asking: What have you been doing since September 4? and getting the following answer: Listen, we paid so many billion dollars in family allowances, so many billion in Old Age Security benefits and so many billion in Unemployment Insurance benefits. All these payments arise from legislation that has been in effect for years.
If you want us to consider what you referred to, of which you apparently are very proud, I would ask you this... I represent the interests of Quebec producers. You mentioned 90 achievements. My question is: How many of those 90 achievements affect or concern Quebec producers? You also talked about more than one billion dollars. How many of those more than one billion dollars went to Quebec producers? Finally, I would like to know what you have done about the real issues. What about the $13 million that pork producers expected to receive? Thirteen million compared to one billion is peanuts. Why did you not pay up? What about the dairy policy you promised for the first of August? What are you waiting for? You promised that during the election campaign.
As for stabilization ... Look at the newspaper articles .. . There are Quebec Members in this House! Read the papers- and I can assure you farmers read them-read what they say about stabilization, and I think you will have to change your tune somewhat.


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wishes to debate the pros and cons of Bill C-25, I think he should do so when Bill C-25 comes before the House again. However, I would say that-


Don Boudria: We are debating your speech.


James Eber Caldwell: I do not want to debate that now because 1 know that the Hon. Member has some opinions and I respect his opinions. I also have some opinions as a Member from Ontario.
As far as the initiatives that have been taken for the Province of Quebec go, there are many listed. I do not particularly want to read the list at the present time, but I do
Canagrex Dissolution Act
recall that on June 19, 1985, the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans opened a $ 16-million research facility at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec. That is just one of the things that have been done. There are many more but-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Who planned it?


James Eber Caldwell: The Hon. Member asked if I could find an example and I quickly found one for him. There are many, many more here. The Province of Quebec has not been neglected by this Government.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell). Obviously, as evidenced by his speech, the Hon. Member has made a great contribution to this House not only in debating agriculture but in debating this particular provision. I would like to question the Hon. Member about the matter of political will.
Certainly opposition Members are correct in saying that there are many government programs that do in fact transcend the political events of year to year, programs which continue regardless of elections. Conversely, there are some matters that require political will, the will of the cabinet table, the will of the caucus and the will of the Members of the House of Commons. These include the fuel tax rebate, the capital gains tax exemption and the decision to undertake a comprehensive review of the Farm Credit Corpotation. As well, they include the moratorium on farm credit foreclosures. It should not be mistakenly believed that these are things that came from the last Government because even members of the Liberal Party would have to admit that these are new measures that require political will.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member who has made such an excellent contribution to this debate so far about political will. Does this Government have a political will toward agriculture that, in his mind, is any different from the political will of the Liberal Party of Canada?


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly a very important question coming from a very honourable Member who represents a rural riding. I am sure he keeps very close contact with his constituents.
I am finding, and I am sure the Hon. Member is finding the same thing, that once we explain the Government policy on agriculture to our constituents, they are very, very pleased with what we are doing. They realize that we have a very tough job to do. We are going through a time that has been one of the toughest times for many, many years. However, the people realize that this Government is willing to try to do the impossible and to try to straighten out a mess that was created by bad management over the past 15 years and a Government that neglected agriculture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is over. Without commenting on the speeches which

October 2, 1985
Canagrex Dissolution Act
have been made on this matter thus far, I would like to ask future speakers to be more specific and address Bill C-42.
[ Translation]


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I am of course very pleased to be taking part in this debate, but, with your permission, I would like to digress somewhat before starting my comments. In answer to the question I asked earlier, my hon. colleague opposite said that the Government's achievements included a research centre in Saint-Jean, which cost $16 million. I might remind my hon. friend that this project is merely the implementation phase of a project we had already developed. If my time had not run out, I would have asked him what happened to the centre for Victoriaville, which was cancelled outright. This was a project worth $16 million.


An Hon. Member:: The Conservatives did that. Incredible!


Alain Tardif: That being said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to Bill C-42, which is actually a very short Bill, since it contains only one section I find important and that is Section 3, which says: The Corporation is hereby dissolved. One section, and there you have the whole Bill. However, I think it is a real tragedy to see something that had become a veritable institution, and that was the result of an unprecedented round of consultations, die like this.
Canagrex was the result of consultations with all the main parties concerned, without a single exception. Throughout those consultations, a number of concerns and issues were raised. However, I beleive that anyone who took the trouble to really understand and analyze the potential of Canagrex understood that the Corporation would have a positive impact on the entire agro-food industry. Bill C-42 has proved to be a golden opportunity to see the true colours of this administration.
For the first time since September 4, 1984, we can see what kind of policy this Government has with respect to agriculture. Of course, they have tried to camouflage their problems with all sorts of mechanisms and strategies. They were supposed to make a number of decisions and then postponed them, giving the impression or inferring or saying that consultations were not yet completed and a decision would be delayed. I am of course referring to the dairy policy, which was supposed to be known or made public on August 1. This is the first time we have been able to grasp something tangible and significant about this Government's true intentions and its true face. Without going very far back into the past, it is interesting to note how this Government has been administering the country and what kind of image it gave the people, particularly those in the agro-food industry. Of course I am more familiar with the commitments and promises made by different spokesmen to the agricultural community throughout Quebec. For instance I have in mind a man who should be taken at his word-at least I would think so since I am referring to the Minister of Public
Works, the Hon. Roch La Salle-who stated in rather colourful words before the largest gathering of farmers in Longueuil: We in the Conservative Party have learned that a man must eat if he wants to go on living. As you can appreciate, it was his way of saying that agriculture was a basic industry, that it was one of the Government's priorities, and he went on to explain what would be done in that sector. That was the principle which, in a way, summed up the electoral commitments to the food producing industry.
Some of those commitments were indeed very specific and very formal. Among other things, and I mentioned this earlier, the Minister of Public Works put his signature to a $13 million symbolic cheque. Well, Mr. Speaker, they are telling you today that they spent over $1 billion to promote agriculture, but they just could not spare the $13 million for pork producers.
They also promised a long term dairy policy. Knowing as we do that this strategic sector is the mainstay of Quebec's agriculture, we can readily imagine the anxiety and concern of producers who have now been waiting for this famous long term policy since August 1 last. It has been put off, practically hidden as a result of what appears to be a tactic of further consultations, but it seems quite clear that we should be prepared for rather drastic cut-backs in that sector.
And then the matter of stabilization about which they said: We will do absolutely nothing! We will not tamper with that. We will consult you and, after reaching a consensus, we will go ahead. We all know what has happened to stabilization. Indeed my colleague opposite was again patting himself on the back a moment ago when he said: This is something fantastic, something of which we are quite proud, something which has been in the interest of Canadian food producers. Unfortunately that is not my opinion and since my opinion might be viewed as biased, or demagogic as my colleague from Levis (Mr. Fontaine) said earlier today in a statement under Standing Order 22, because it seems that we do not have the research facilities of Members opposite-
But I think that he then opened the door for me so that I could indicate to you ... not the personal view of the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif), but what those who live and develop in close contact with the Quebec farm industry think that you have done since you came to power on September 4, 1984.
Concerning the dairy policy, I should like to quote from an article which was published in La terre de chez nous and which was entitled "Western cereals preferred to milk. Ottawa has broken its promise". I quote:
Brian Mulroney's Conservative Government has broken another of its election promises. It is already certain that the long term dairy policy will not be announced on August 1.
Here is another quote under the following heading:
"Quebec farm industry will go through a difficult year following the major gains made in 1984. The producers' indebtedness has increased by 25 per cent-
October 2, 1985

Here is another quote referring again to the dairy policy:
Dairy producers would like Wise-
-the Minister of Agriculture-
-to know that he might find the weather in late summer quite hot and stormy.
Another quote, again from La terre de chez nous:
The industrial milk industry is in a crisis. New reductions in quotas would have a catastrophic impact on the Quebec economy. Milk producers do not want any more cut backs. They have done their share. They are now calling on the Prime Minister.
These are newspaper quotes which clearly indicate what we are aware of Quebec farm producers in general and dairy producers in particular. The Government should not brag about its performance, for the report I have just made of the situation in Quebec is far from good.
I referred earlier to the hog industry where the Government had promised $13 million.
The Federation of Hog Producers will sue the Federal Government.
And I quote:
Early last week, the Federation of Hog Producers decided to sue the Agricultural Stabilization Board, a Federal Government organization.
The Federation hopes in this way to recover the $13 million which were more than promised to them, as the Minister of Public Works signed a symbolic cheque in the amount of $1 billion and some million dollars. However, the Government cannot find $13 million to fulfil its election promises.
Let us go on to another matter about which the Government seems also to be very proud, the stabilization measure, Bill C-25. I would invite the Quebec Members to speak up on this issue, if there are any here.
This is what we find in the newspaper La terre de chez nous of August 23, 1985, and I quote:
Quebec farmers protest that they have been betrayed-he also denounces the 58 Conservative Members of Parliament, "these men and women who have abandoned us at the first opportunity and who did not stand up to oppose passage of Bill C-25".
This was said by Mr. Proulx, who is President of the UPA. These are not the words of your Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif), but of Mr. Jacques Proulx, President of the UPA.
According to Mr. Proulx, this is an unacceptable intrusion in Quebec affairs, but the Quebec Conservatives did not even realize it.
Here is another quote on the same issue: "The UPA is outraged!"
This article also deplores the way Bill C-25 was debated in the House and given hasty passage at the very end of June.
Let us look at other newspaper cuttings. I shall deal with them more quickly and give only their titles: "Stabilization Bill-Systematic Hypocrisy in Ottawa." These are the comments of Mr. Jacques Proulx, the President of the UPA. 1 am not the one to say all this.
Canagrex Dissolution Act
There is more: "The most centralizing legislation ever adopted by the Federal Government" "Garon-" and this is someone that my colleagues from Quebec are supposed to know; this is Mr. Jean Garon, the Quebec Minister of Agriculture,"-Garon would accept a Parliamentary Commission on Agriculture." He also added: "What the Conservatives have proposed is worst than what we had before."


Don Boudria: These are the comments of a Member of the Parti quebecois with conservative leanings!


Alain Tardif: Here is another comment from Mr. Garon: "Bill C-25 will not be accepted in Quebec."
As concerns the Crow's Nest, if I refer to the Longueuil meeting-


John Kenneth Gormley: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 have been listening with interest to the Hon. Member as I am trying to improve my French. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his speech. However, he has been referring to the Crows-nest Pass freight rate, Bill C-25, and a number of other subjects, and I am just wondering precisely what he is trying to get at and if the rule of relevance applies in this debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point raised by the Hon. Member is, of course, well taken by the Chair. However, prior speakers in this debate have spoken in general terms on matters of agriculture. I made a comment prior to the speech of the Hon. Member and 1 hope he, like other Members in this House, speaks to the Bill as much as possible.


Alain Tardif: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the Hon. Member had listened to my remarks, I think he would not have voiced that objection.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-42 deals with Canagrex. Canagrex was created for the purpose of promoting internationally the Canadian agro-food industry. To my knowledge, agro-food activities cover milk, apples, as well as all other products referred to in my earlier clippings.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I was coming back to Bill C-42 but you will allow me, before I do so, perhaps more specifically and with relevance to Bill C-42 ... I would like, with your permission, to simply refer to a last clipping headed: "Farm bankruptcies" This is how I relate that to Bill C-42.
"Farm bankruptcies-figures and human impact" Over the last year, there has been a 20 per cent increase in the number of farms sold through TON because of bankruptcy. While we look at bankruptcy data, we also consider the social, environmental and human damage caused by bankruptcies.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian farming has reached a point where it is essential, absolutely necessary that government should help, support and invest in agriculture. Unfortunately, the

October 2, 1985
Canagrex Dissolution Act
farming industry does not have the ability to pay, the capacity to create organizations which would promote its products overseas or on foreign markets. That was indeed the role of Canagrex. That was the purpose, the ultimate goal of that corporation and it is now being destroyed through Bill C-42. That purpose would have been, in difficult periods such as the one Canadian farming is now going through, to open up markets, to help producers faced with tremendous difficulties make ends meet, and hope that at some point in time they will increase their production and thereby make their operations more viable.
Canagrex is and was more specifically in my view an essential tool, for a number of reasons but especially because Canadians, as we all know, do have a very large country with a relatively small population, unfortunately. We are 25 million Canadians. But because of this large country of ours, we have the opportunity, the possibility and the power to develop our farms, to expect to profit from those extremely large farms, to produce, to foster, to develop products which unfortunately our population cannot absorb in all cases, as seen from that little test.
So we must hope, if we want to develop farming, to take our rightful place on foreign markets, to take our place among countries which are privileged with having a much larger population than ours. But the demise of Canagrex, this Government's move to abolish it, mean that suddenly, they are flushing down the drain that absolutely vital tool needed for the Canadian economy really to expand.
We also are in a situation where people talk about competition, and productivity, where everyone agrees that the agrofood industry is no exception, that there are incredible economies of size to be sought out, unbelievable economies to be expected by investing in research, which directly results in increased productivity, and increased production. Canagrex was the tool designed to find markets for those surpluses, and of which clearly the economy has an obvious need.
I feel that the Canagrex move is a direct, unacceptable and most cruel attack against small family farms. Of course, those who have millions of dollars invested in that industry can afford to have a salesman, a sales force, public relations teams to sell their products. However, the small farmers or the families who need every minute of their time to make both ends meet cannot invest in the exploration for new markets and cannot put new funds into marketing. And this was precisely the purpose of Canagrex. And this Government which said it was in sympathy and wanted to support agriculture dissolves Canagrex after just about everybody has recognized its effectiveness and the fact that it could have been a necessary tool.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that Bill C-42 is by a long way the best proof that the concerns and the awareness of this Government are to a much larger extent related to multinationals, banks, big corporations than to small family
businesses. This Government wants to apply to the agri-food industry the rules of capitalism and competition to the extent that this will result in countless bankruptcies and breakups, and larger corporations will gradually take over the small family businesses which in my opinion are the true fabric of our agriculture, especially in Quebec.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I should like to ask a question, Mr. Speaker.
I agree with many things which the Hon. Member has just said, but I wonder why the Liberal Government took so long to set up Canagrex. I know Mr. Whelan quite well and I agree with the project, but the Liberal party was in power for 20 years, Mr. Trudeau was there for 15 years, Mr. Whelan for 12 or 13 years. Why did it take so long to set up an organization such as Canagrex, considering the fact that it began operating 18 months ago?


Alain Tardif: My hon. colleague knows perfectly well, Mr. Speaker, since he probably took part in the debate, that the Canagrex Bill did not come out of the blue. Consultations were held for several months and even years, and I know, because I was here in the House, that in 1979, the first step was made, and at that time, if 1 remember correctly, the Progressive Conservatives, the party opposite, had expressed a number of objections, so that the realization of this concept, which could have come in the eighties, had to be postponed. But the Canagrex Corporation was a fact, and it was generally recognized, and I would like to take this opportunity to recall some of what was said by my hon. friend of the New Democratic Party who said earlier that the Auditor General had to admit that this Crown corporation was one of the best administered and best organized and one likely to generate the best results.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), for a supplementary.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I approve of Canagrex. But why did the Liberal Party wait twenty years before proceeding to its creation? You referred to consultations that lasted several months, I agree with that, but why wait twenty years? Because you must not forget that Mr. Pearson won the 1963 elections and Mr. Trudeau those of 1968. Producers experienced so many problems. So why did it take twenty years? I know the Liberal Party is slow, but my God!


Alain Tardif: The Liberal Party is infinitely faster than the New Democrats.


Don Boudria: More dynamic also. The New Democrats will never be in office.
October 2, 1985


Alain Tardif: Here is my answer. Parts of it lie in the question itself, Mr. Speaker. One must go back twenty years. My colleague said that was twenty years ago. The premise of his question seems to me somewhat odd since twenty years ago, we were not even capable of a production such as the one we had in 1982-83, and the problems Quebec's and Canada's agriculture experienced in the 80s cannot be compared to those of the 60s. I think that in reality the appropriateness of that corporation appeared in the 80s. Even though there might have been a delay of one, two or three years, the parliamentary system being what it is, I do not think it is surprising that the corporation was established under our administration. We can see how slowly things evolve under the new administration.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and some questions. I listened carefully to what the Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) said. I thought he may have spoken a little about how Canagrex duplicated the services that are otherwise available within Government and private enterprise, about the fact that we sell 40 per cent of our products of private enterprise abroad, about how Canagrex only succeeded to the small extent that it did because it was able to extend credit, and about how it competed with the private enterprise that opened the Japanese, Polish and Chinese markets.
Instead of speaking of those things, the Member spoke of how the federal Government is now interfering in Quebec-I forget the term he used-by offering Quebec, under the tripartite plan, 3 per cent of its domestic sales if it wishes to come into the stabilization plan. I do not know how he believes that the Government is somehow hurting Quebec by offering to give it money for its scheme. I do not know how the Member can talk about getting additional $13 million from the Agricultural Stabilization Act when the people who would receive that money were already protected by a Government-funded bipartite scheme paying their expenses as well as a specialized wage. I believe that last year they got approximately $28 a hog and they still wished to have the $6.75 per hog which came out of the Agricultural Stabilization Act.
Does the Member for Richmond-Wolfe think it is fair for a Government which must look after the whole of Canada to give hog farmers in Quebec the stabilization plan for the 2.1 million hogs in the Quebec market on top of the very rich plan which is in the Quebec arena at the present time?


Alain Tardif: What I would like for Quebec finally is an amount similar to that Western Canada is getting in the first place. Secondly, you raised three points: To start with, you said a number of factors and circumstances affected the sale of farm products overseas. I would like to say that, in terms of farm business, your notion of profit must be wrong, for if it were to be taken to the letter, you would just have caused about 80 percent of the farm businesses to go bankrupt. This is an area where the Government has no choice
Canagrex Dissolution Act
but to get financially involved. It has to support Canagrex, and even if Canagrex had done nothing else but to provide for its management needs, there was a justification for it, and its activities should be allowed to go on.
The problems of agriculture are so desperate that the Government has to support it. You mentioned stabilization schemes. The answer is dead simple: if you have two programs, with a net result of $10 for one and $1.50 for the other, knowing you as I do, you are bound to opt for the $10 one. That is what we have now. In Quebec, we have a stabilization program which is very generous to producers. There is no damn sense in what you guys are saying, that is: get rid of your program and get in on ours.
The third aspect is hog production. On the matter of hogs, since you are making so much fuss about equity, I will tell you that hog producers are taxpayers just like you, they pay the same taxes as you do. Why should they be deprived of their fair share, the same share as Ontario and Western Canada got, and which they are denied for bureaucratic reasons? That amount is due, the Minister of Public Works pledged it, and it should be paid.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on an excellent speech. He is clearly able to defend the interests of Quebec in this House, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask him if I was right in understanding that the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle), the Hon. Member for Joliette, during the election campaign, did indeed promise to give $13 million to the producers of Quebec and even wrote out a cheque, and that cheque was made out of rubber, as they say in my riding. Is that indeed what the Minister of Public Works did, and if so, how can it be said that such a Minister, and such a Government are indeed interested in agriculture when they keep backing off from their promises? Did I understand correctly?


Alain Tardif: That is indeed what happened and there was I believe ample coverage of that matter in the newspapers. The present Minister of Public Works who was in a generous mood, signed his name-he was not the honourable at the time-Roch La Salle, on a $13 million cheque. He did much more than that, because that is one problem. It is a 13 million problem. But there is another one, a $450,000 problem, the sheep problem. There has been less talk about the smaller producers, because there are fewer of them to speak up and defend their interests. But on that day, in Longueuil, the Minister of Public Works also signed his name on a $450,000 cheque.
Those sheep producers now have to go to court to get what is rightfully theirs. And hog producers have done exactly the same thing, they had to institute proceedings against the Government in order to get back those $13 million. This is quite unacceptable in my opinion! It is unacceptable that this problem should have been allowed to drag on for so long and

October 2, 1985
Canagrex Dissolution Act
the reason we were given is that if we paid those $13 million, it would bring about a more or less favourable decision from the United States.
The Minister even recognized in Committee that he had consulted the Americans about the Stabilization Act but that he had not take into account the demands of the province of Quebec. Therefore, the Minister who was obviously feeling very uncomfortable and unhappy about paying those $13 million, because it would affect a decision yet to be taken . . . So, that decision was taken and it was in fact acceptable. We asked the question: Why not pay those $13 million? We were given another reason. Because of that, unfortunately, those to whom that money belonged have to go to court to get what is rightfully theirs.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting afternoon in the House. Anyone who was watching this debate-although I am not sure anyone would want to watch what has been going on here-would have to conclude that the Government is made up of a bunch of shysters-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rossi:: You are the one who said it.


Charles James Mayer: Let me repeat that anyone listening to what the Opposition has been saying about us would think that no Government Member who is a farmer would dare to go home on the weekend to visit our constituents because the farmers are totally upset with us and at variance with everything we do.
Certainly there are things we would like to do as a Government that we are unable to do for various reasons. However, we have been able to accomplish some of our goals and I think that the Opposition would be more credible if it would acknowledge some of our achievements. We realize that the Opposition will condemn us on most matters but surely they must recognize that we have accomplished some of our goals.
The Opposition may object to our stance on Canagrex but those Members who were here for the part of the debate leading up to the creation of Canagrex will know that there were some major problems associated with that Bill. None of us dealing with the Bill at that time could say anything against the necessity for advertising or financing and promotion of agricultural products. Canada is more dependent than the United States or the European Community on exports of agricultural products for the well-being of its farmers. We recognized that but we also disagreed with a major proposal in the Bill that Canagrex be authorized to own and further process products. We supported the provision of the Bill dealing with the financing and promotion of agriculture and would have been happy to support it on that basis. Perhaps, once Canagrex had a reputation and the expertise was developed in the agency it could have been expanded further as
needed. However, Canagrex should not have been created with so many extra powers.
When we took office we took a different approach with respect to Canagrex. Again, let me point out some of the action our Government has taken. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) says that we have done nothing.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No, I did not. I said that those things would have been done anyway.


Charles James Mayer: Let me finish. He said that we have done nothing that has required initiative on the part of the Government. That is entirely not the case. Let me explain some of the initiatives our Government has taken. Without our initiative there would not have been an interim payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act which pumped some $250 million into the Province of Saskatchewan. I have stated in the House previously that this initiative was supported by the Opposition and we appreciate that. It benefited western farmers. It is wrong for the Opposition to say that we have done nothing that has required initiative on our part. It is simply not the case that the action we have taken is a result of ongoing Government programs.
Furthermore, for the first time, we made use of the provisions under the meat import law which resulted in a reduction in the amount of meat coming into the country. Regardless of what is said, the amount of meat coming to Canada from offshore will be smaller this year than it was in 1984 as a result of the initiatives taken by this Government.
The Opposition talks about the November 8 economic statement. The Minister of Finance found over $100 million to use as a rebate on farm fuel. Surely Members opposite will not stand in the House to say that they are opposed to that measure and state that objection to farmers in their ridings. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) froze the seaway tolls. That was an initiative of the Government that saved producers a significant amount of money. That initiative will benefit farmers.
Last spring, we took the initiative to study the sugar beet industry in this country. It was an initiative that resulted in an interim measure to allow producers in Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec to plant sugar beets. Although we were unable to reach an agreement in Alberta, and Alberta producers did not plant sugar beets, there would have been no sugar beet industry at all without that initiative.
We made a campaign commitment to establish a procedure by which tobacco farmers could establish a marketing board. That was one of the first pieces of legislation passed in the House, in fulfilment of that commitment. However, listening to the Opposition, one would think that we have done absolutely nothing for agriculture and are totally abandoning that sector. That is simply not the case and I think the Opposition would have much more credibility and add a great deal to the demeanor of the House if they would give us credit for some of the initiatives we have taken. The Opposition may criticize the Government for not taking enough action or not taking it soon
October 2, 1985

enough and give us its suggestions but it should not be totally negative and disregard everything we have accomplished. It does not do the Opposition, the House or the agricultural industry any good at all-


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister blames us for all the sins of the world, but I would like to remind him that the purpose of today's debate is to allow Members of Parliament to speak on Canagrex and not to give the Government credit it takes for itself.
I would urge him to speak on the Bill and not on what he calls in other-


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Opposition does not want to hear about those positive steps we have taken on behalf of farmers. However, if it is fair for a Member of the Opposition to take 20 minutes to do nothing but berate the Government about matters which have nothing to do with Canagrex, at least it should be fair for a Member of the Government to take some time to demonstrate what the Government has done for agriculture. I suggest that it is just common courtesy and good manners, if nothing else.
Let me make some remarks about Canagrex. We all recognize that one of the reasons for the creation of Canagrex was that farmers need as much export earnings as possible. We have taken some initiatives in terms of agricultural financing. As of yesterday, a program under the Export Development
Canagrex Dissolution Act
Corporation was established to assist in short-term financing with respect to bulk agricultural products. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is presently in the Soviet Union conducting trade promotion in that part of the world. I was pleased to be invited to the Soviet Union in June. That country is our largest customer for grain. We have not abandoned Canadian farmers in their efforts to export products. I repeat that the Opposition is wrong in using this Bill as a basis for saying that the Government has totally abandoned agriculture. That is certainly not the case. I see that you are signalling that my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker.
One of the other things Canagrex was attempting to do was to provide more advertisement and more market intelligence. We are currently doing that through increased awareness around the world via our embassies. That is the kind of thing going on and about which Hon. Members need to know in terms of this Government taking its responsibilities and seeing that we continue to export as farmers. Canadian farmers have a tremendous record around the world. We are very well thought of.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: That is one thing on which we all agree. I shall conclude on that happy note.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 3, 1985