1986-10-20

Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67, I wish to table, in both official languages, the latest annual report of the Economic Council of Canada.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the list of the membership of the Committees of Cabinet. I would ask to have it appended to today's edition of Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent for the request of the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: For list referred to above, see Appendix A.]


TABLING OF ORDER IN COUNCIL DESIGNATING ACTING MINISTERS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to table a list of the Acting Ministers and have it appended to today's edition of Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent for the request of the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: For list referred to above, see Appendix B.]


CANADIAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67, I have the honour to lay upon the table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


ORDERS IN COUNCIL
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to table, pursuant to Standing Order 130, copies of Order in Council appointments received from the Privy Council Office last Friday.


POINT OF ORDER
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, apropos statements by Ministers, since this is the first day back in the House for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) since the Reykjavik Summit, I wonder whether he will be making a statement at the earliest possibility to inform us of the deliberations, and particularly the impact upon the ABM Treaty in which we are all very interested.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it would be the intention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to make a statement today, but I think the Hon. Member can contemplate one in the next few days.

October 20, 1986
Introduction of Bills


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, CANADA LABOUR CODE, PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-229, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Employment Act (whistleblowing).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William John Vankoughnet: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to provide appropriate sanctions against retaliatory discharges by public sector employers of employees who report or "blow the whistle" on serious misconduct of their employers. In protecting employees acting in good faith, this Bill would recognize that there are times when it is in the public interest to encourage employee whistleblowing, particularly when the public health and safety are at issue.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps as a note of information the Chair might make it clear to the House that it is the obligation of the Chair first to announce that leave to introduce a Bill has been prayed for. When that has been completed and agreed, an Hon. Member has an opportunity to make a short statement and then we follow on. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) will be heard in just a moment.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-230, an Act to amend the Criminal Code.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to provide for the presence of legal counsel for unborn children at a meeting of therapeutic abortion committees in hospitals across the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


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

Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-231, an Act to provide for the political rights of public employees.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is in fulfillment of a promise I made in the 1984 election. It also seeks to fulfil a promise made by the Government at the same time. It would ensure that in addition to the existing rights to vote and to make financial contributions to a political party, the people working for the Public Service of Canada and for Crown corporations would also be guaranteed the right to support actively a political party or candidate, to solicit or collect funds for a political party or candidate, to be a member of a political party and to exercise the usual rights and privileges thereof and to express views or to engage in activities in relation to matters that form part of the platform of a political party or in relation to other issues of public interest.
This Bill is designed to take away the shackles on political activity by public servants. In order to maintain the neutrality of the Public Service, however, these rights would not extend to deputy ministers or senior managers in the Government of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to correct what may have been a false impression that
October 20, 1986

Railway Act


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
I left with the House in response to a question last Friday as is reported at page 463 of Hansard. The question was asked by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Alt-house). It had to do with the establishment of initial grain prices. I said in my response:
The Canadian Wheat Board sets the initial prices and, if he has any argument with that, he should take it up with the Canadian Wheat Board because those prices reflect the reality of the market-place-
In a practical sense, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board does establish the price by recommending to the Government that such prices be established. In a truly technical and legal sense it is the Government of Canada that sets the prices on the recommendation of the Canadian Wheat Board because the Canadian Wheat Board is the marketing agency and does have the facility of monitoring markets and is in a better position than the Government of the day to determine what the actual prices should be. If I did leave the wrong impression, I apologize to the Hon. Member and to the House.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Minister for making the correction that he made and for keeping the record straight. This augurs well for this session of the House.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I do want to make it clear that this situation can occur every day to any of us in the House. It has been our practice to avoid correcting Hansard in this way because it would lead to a very prolonged debate, and it is debate.
I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if we could continue with the practice of correcting Hansard as we did in prior times rather than reverting to these statements and debating points that one can make following the speech that one has made in the House, or that a Minister has made for that matter. If the next day we are going to debate whether the Minister was right or wrong or whether I was right or wrong in saying something, we could go on for several hours debating such questions. If it is a question of fact that a Minister did not record properly, I would agree, but this was not fact. This was debate. It is a grey area and it is sometimes difficult for one to make clear in debate exactly what one means. I would shy away from this practice of encouraging people to make corrections to Hansard the next day in respect of statements they feel may have been misunderstood.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the Hon. Member is saying. I think it has been the usual practice that if there is an error in a statement or a word or a number there is a procedure for that. After reading Hansard this morning I felt that I may have left the wrong impression and I wanted to correct that. This would certainly be in the interests of all Members in the House. I regret having had to do it and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I do not like having to do it very often. This is different than simply an error in the recording. I think there is a differentiation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. George Hees, for the Minister of Communications, moved that Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Railway Act, be now read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee.
Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour of introducing the second reading stage of Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Railway Act. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, arises from the November 1984 economic statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and more especially from his May 1985 Budget. Its purpose is to recover the administration costs incurred by the CRTC in regulating the telecommunications carrier industry. Costs will be recovered from the carriers themselves, not the taxpayers, as was the case until now.
Mr. Speaker, why recover administration costs and especially, why does the CRTC regulate this industry, which is why we are asking this House to authorize recovery of these costs? Since our Government was elected, Mr. Speaker, we have emphasized economic recovery. During the election campaign, we told Canadians that the ills besetting our economy were inflation, high interest rates-those brutally high interest rates that were putting families out of house and home, making breadwinners jobless and causing small entrepreneurs to lose their businesses-and the scourge of unemployment affecting our families and especially young people. We said at the time that a remedy would have to be found and that we would start by cleaning up our public finances. This Bill is part of that process. To put our public .finances on a sound footing, we must control our expenditures and then reduce them.
Reducing the deficit is a Sisyphean undertaking, as you know, Mr. Speaker. As soon as the Minister of Finance manages to cut spending so we can get our economy rolling in the right direction again, we must make every effort to get our economy to the point where we will finally be able to reduce this deficit. My point is that any effort, no matter how small, is of tremendous importance in this fight against the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, we also wanted to create a climate that was favourable to economic growth and prosperity in Canada.
As part of this process, we must put our tax system in order, contain our enormous cumulative public debt and eventually reduce that debt. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to allow the Government to recover the cost of regulating the telecommunications industry, and it is therefore part of this Government's general efforts to recover government administration costs.

October 20, 1986
Railway Act
The May Budget stressed the Government's intention to introduce new cost recovery methods to reduce the federal deficit. More specifically, the May Budget announced that starting in 1986-87, new cost recovery measures at the Department of Communications will include the recovery of costs incurred by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission in regulating telecommunications carriers under federal jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, we have therefore been consistent. We announced that it was necessary to put public finances on a sound footing, we suggested how this could be done, we were elected on a platform that included those suggestions and now we are trying to implement them, with the authority of the House. As is the case with other public services, the telecommunications industry has been subject to regulations almost since its inception, and the plethora of regulations indicates these services are essential to the social and economic wellbeing of Canadians. In recent years, certain areas of telecommunications have been given an opportunity to compete with each other, and I am sure this trend will continue with our new technology. However, I believe I am right in saying that for the time being, services such as basic local telephone services will continue to be provided under a monopoly system.
Mr. Speaker, the Government must therefore be vigilant. The Minister must protect the consumer while allowing telecommunications carriers to develop and expand. Consequently, although the Government fully expects that telecommunication services which may be offered on a competitive basis will eventually be deregulated, it does intend to recover from the industry the cost of regulating services provided by a monopoly.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill introduced today will amend the Railway Act to enable the CRTC to set fees and collect them from carriers under its jurisdiction. Once the Bill becomes law the CRTC, as usual with the approval of the Treasury Board, will then be in a position to impose a fee schedule to telecommunication carriers regulated by the federal Government. Such fees will make it possible to recover costs directly related to the regulations.
The collection of these fees will not have a significant financial impact on the industry. For example, a levy of less than 1/4 of 1 per cent, which this Bill would impose, on the 1984 operating revenues of these industries would have yielded around $15 million. As we know, the telecommunications industry is a multimillion if not multibillion dollar industry. At present, the CRTC collects licence fees from Canadian broadcasters and cable operators. These fees, which are collected pursuant to the Broadcasting Act, are sufficient to cover costs incurred in the regulation of the broadcasting industry.
One result of Bill C-4 will be to place federally-regulated telecommunications carriers on the same footing as the broadcasting industry. Therefore-

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is a question of equity as well. [English]
The legislation will permit the Government to recover approximately $6 million in revenue annually beginning in 1986-87. There are six telecommunications carriers regulated by the CRTC under the Railway Act. Those companies are Bell Canada, the British Columbia Telephone Company, CNCP Telecommunications, Telesat Canada, NorthwestTel and Terra Nova Tel. Together they account for more than 70 per cent of Canadian telecommunications assets, revenues and subscribers. The $6 million to be recovered in 1986-87 therefore represents less than .1 per cent of the annual operating revenue of the six carriers.
[ Translation]
So, Mr. Speaker, the CRTC will consult the public and the industry with a view to ensuring equitable fees and establishing a fair formula to set the fees to be paid by each company. Both the formula and the fee schedule will require prior CRTC approval.
This cost recovery measure is similar to the one which several Canadian provinces have already implemented. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this is nothing new, but for the federal Government it amounts to a major step towards sounder national finances. As I said earlier, both the formula and the fee schedule are subject to Treasury Board approval, and they will shift the cost of regulations from the Canadian taxpayer to the company involved.
Mr. Speaker, we know full well that Canadian taxpayers are carrying a heavy burden and that middle-income earners are particularly hard hit. Indeed these are the people who create jobs because, fortunately for them, they are the ones who perhaps are in a better position to invest in job-creating projects. As we have heard, Mr. Speaker, in the past three years small- and medium-sized businesses created almost 70 per cent of all new jobs in Canada.
We also know that major companies have to deal with structural problems and, in some cases, international marketing difficulties. They are no longer in the best position to create the jobs we need to reduce unemployment even further. The unemployment rate is going down, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately not fast enough to create a sufficient number of job opportunities for our growing labour force.
The CRTC was established by Parliament in 1968 under the Broadcasting Act and, on April 1, 1976, the power to regulate telecommunication companies was transferred from the Canadian Transport Commission to the CRTC. It was on that date that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act-the CRTC as the agency is commonly
October 20, 1986

called-was used to transfer the Canadian Transport Commission authority over telecommunications to the CRTC.
In the case of telecommunication carriers, the CRTC receives to a great extent its regulatory powers from subsections 321(1) and 321(2) of the Railway Act. This is why we are now asking for an amendment to this Act.
Under the Act, the CRTC must ensure that the rates imposed by telecommunication carriers are just and reasonable and that there is no unjust discrimination. The prohibition against unjust discrimination therefore applies equally to customers and competitors.
The major part of the work of the CRTC consists in examining the rates charged. The purpose of this examination is to ensure that the rates charged to customers remain just and reasonable and that the profits of the industry are not excessive.
Just a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, the CRTC ordered Bell Canada to reduce its rates for all its customers.
The CRTC has also undertaken important proceedings on complex economic and social matters such as the interconnection request from CNCP to provide long distance telephone services and phase III of the investigation on the cost of existing services.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the CRTC is engaged in very important activities to protect the consumer, to relieve the taxpayer if we are allowed to recover these costs, and also to promote economic development of this country.
The purpose of the investigation on the cost of existing services was to determine the cost of the types of services provided by the telecommunication carriers under the jurisdiction of the federal Government, and this was an important step in developing a more effective and less costly regulatory process.
This Bill is introduced consistent with the procedures of this House. It was announced in an economic statement. It was set in the Budget of 1985 and today it was introduced for second reading. We are hopeful that the House will allow the CRTC to recover these fees.
There are a number of Bills which are either already before the House or will come before the House that also have to do with the communications sector of our government policy. I am hoping that Members on all sides of the House will help us by improving this legislation if they find that there is something which does not answer the needs or the potential of these industries, or by passing these Bills swiftly if they meet their requirements.
Within these Bills is enabling legislation that will allow the CRTC to look into the operations of very large companies, such as Bell Canada, to ensure that they are administered in a way which takes into consideration the consumer as well as the
Railway Act
future of our telecommunications industry in Canada. As we know, there is a great deal of competition from the United States and Europe in the various industries that are part of the communications field. We must have modern legislation and modern methods to ensure that we can continue to compete and become leaders in the world in some of the areas of these high tech industries.

In summary, Bill C-4 reflects the intention announced by this Government of implementing new cost recovery measures to reduce the federal deficit. Approval of this Bill will enable the CRTC to recover the costs incurred in regulating telecommunication carriers. The CRTC will transfer these costs to the carriers themselves rather than to the taxpayers. The CRTC will therefore be relieving taxpayers to the limit of its modest resources.
Moreover, the telecommunications sector will thus be treated just like the broadcasting industry, which now pays licensing fees. The CRTC will therefore be able to play its role by providing a just and equitable service, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to have congratulated the Minister on her first piece of legislation in this House. I take this opportunity to welcome my colleague as the new Parliamentary Secretary. I wish her a lot of pleasure as we face some very complicated and exciting legislation in the field of communications and culture.
That being said, I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Railway Act. This Bill pertains to the telecommunications industry and the Parliamentary Secretary has linked it rather closely to the broadcasting industry with respect to its application for supervision and regulation by the CRTC. The Bill was introduced originally by the Minister of Commmunications (Miss MacDonald) and received first reading in this House on October 3, 1986. It is noteworthy, however, that this is not the first time that this particular amendment to the Railway Act has been introduced. During the last session of Parliament, that is the First Session of the Thirty-third Parliament, the previous Minister of Communications introduced for first reading into this House an identical Bill to amend Section 321 of the Railway Act. That Bill received first reading as Bill C-125 on June 26, 1986.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that June 26, 1986, was virtually the final day of the session prior to the summer recess and that Bill C-25 died on the Order Paper when the Government decided to prorogue the session. Why would the Government choose to introduce a Bill and prorogue the House the next day? The only logical answer to this seemingly illogical action on the part of the Government is that the Government lacks a sense of timing and direction in its legislative agenda.
What is the purpose of this Bill to amend the Railway Act and why has the Government introduced it a second time as Bill C-4? I would like to take this opportunity to examine the

October 20, 1986
Railway Act
rationale of this Bill. In other words, what is the purpose of introducing it and what is meant to be achieved? The Parliamentary Secretary informed us that this Bill is to bring equity to the the telecommmunications industry on the same basis as it exists in the broadcasting industry. I would like to point out that that may not really be the case. If that were the case, I think we would be facing some serious difficulties in both industries. I refer to the news release by the former Minister of Communications, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), on June 26, 1986, when the first Bill was introduced in the House. It states that the amendment to the Railway Act would allow the recovery of costs associated with the Government of Canada's regulation of the telecommunications carrier industry. The news release goes on to demonstrate how the telecommunications regulatory authority, the CRTC, will recoup with the aid of this Bill sufficient revenues to cover the costs incurred by the CRTC in regulating the telecommunications industry, namely, Bell Canada, British Columbia Telephone Company, CNCP Telecommunications, Telesat Canada, NorthwestTel and Terra Nova Tel.
However, I bring to the attention of the House Clause 1 of the Bill which would amend Section 321 of the Railway Act by adding the following:
321.1(1) Subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission may make regulations imposing fees, levies or charges on any company within the meaning of Section 320 and providing for the manner of calculating the fees, levies or charges in respect of the company and the payment thereof to the Commission.
There is no indication in this regard that it is strictly to recover the cost of operation. It simply indicates that the CRTC shall have a certain mandate subject to the approval of Treasury Board.
Let me point out another matter which I think the Minister of Communications might find rather disturbing. I quoted from an official document released by the Department of Communications on June 26, 1986. I bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Mailly), to the Minister of Communications, and to the House that I received in my office on October 17, 1986, a piece of misinformation from the office of the Minister. It was sent to me on PC caucus services stationery with the heading "PC INFO". It outlined the content of the Bill.
This was not an official communication from the Minister of Communications but a communication which I suppose was sent to the caucus of the PC Party. I do not believe it is the kind of information that I as a member of the Opposition Party expected to receive in order to guide and counsel me on this particular Bill.
That being said, it was noted in this PC Information document which is a precis of the Bill to amend the Railway Act, that:
The legislation would permit the government to recover approximately $6 million in revenue annually, beginning in 1986-87. The amount collected from
the carriers will correspond directly to the costs incurred by the CRTC in regulating the telecommunications industry.
I find it rather sad that I would be receiving a directive from the PC caucus instead of the Minister of Communications, who I presently welcome.
The purpose of the Bill is to allow the CRTC to levy fees. The reason the Minister introduced the Bill, according to the memo which I received from the PC caucus, is to allow the CRTC to recover the costs which it incurs. Therefore, one would assume that the CRTC is presently not bringing in sufficient revenue to cover the costs of its operations. However, when I looked into the figures I found that the CRTC is in fact bringing in enough revenues, through licence fees and the like, to cover all the costs of its operations, including salaries, hearings and administrative costs. Not only is the CRTC currently generating enough revenue to cover all the costs it incurred in regulating both the broadcasting and telecommunications industry, it is generating a huge surplus.
My statement is borne out by the Chairman of the CRTC, Mr. Andre Bureau who, on April 10, 1986, appeared before our Standing Committee on Communications and Culture and made a statement about the CRTC finances. On pages 40 and 41 of the minutes of the proceedings of that Standing Committee, Mr. Bureau is quoted as saying that he estimates that the CRTC will incur total operating costs of S25.7 million in 198687. He further states that he estimates that the CRTC will bring in revenues to the Government of Canada's Consolidated Revenue Fund, through licence fees and the like of $54 million during the same period. This is more than double the costs incurred by the CRTC, so it would seem to me that it is certainly covering its costs.
Mr. Bureau summed up the situation to our Standing Committee as follows:
[ Translation]
"I should point out that the CRTC is a net revenue generator for the federal government. In this fiscal year, as I mentioned, estimated revenues amount to $54 million, which is more than twice our allocated resources."

If the goal of the Minister, the Ministry and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is to recover costs, 1 would suggest that this is not the area where they will recover costs. It already has a fine profit of $54 million.
While the Government purports to introduce Bill C-4 to allow the CRTC to cover its costs, it will be apparent from what Mr. Bureau has said that the CRTC operates at a large surplus of $54 million. In fact, the CRTC is probably the envy of every other administrative body and agency because it is so highly profitable. The CRTC is not a drain on the federal treasury. In fact, it returns excess revenues to the treasury. It is not a drain on the consumers or the constituency that it serves. We see that Government's regulatory agency as being productive, efficient and obviously well managed. However, I do not see why it should become a cash cow to fill the coffers
October 20, 1986

of the government Treasury at a hidden cost to the Canadian consumers. Its role is to regulate, not to print money. If the Government wanted to print money I think it should have stated that and perhaps changed the mandate of the CRTC.
If the Government sees this as a valid instrument to further reduce the deficit-which I agree must be addressed-through indirectly taxing large corporations, that is fine. The Government should openly state its intentions.
In his Budget Speech of May, 1985, the Minister of Finance announced the Government's intention to ensure that costs incurred by regulatory authorities were paid for by the regulated industries themselves. It is one thing for the Minister of Finance to recover the costs of regulation for the CRTC; it is quite another for the Government to enrich federal coffers and not the CRTC by introducing Bill C-4 without fully stating its case.
I have already pointed out that the CRTC is highly profitable and does not need to generate new sources of revenue. If it must redistribute those costs with respect to broadcasting and telecommunications, then I believe it is like comparing apples and oranges because the costs are different and their calculations are different. If, in reality, the intention of the Government is to raise revenues from new sources which will go directly toward the reduction of the federal deficit, why has it not come right out and said so? Instead, the Government has introduced Bill C-4 in the guise of generating new revenues for the CRTC to cover costs which are non-existent operating costs with respect to its over-all operation. It is another hidden method to enrich the Government's coffers without letting the population know exactly what it is doing.
If the Government wants to reduce its deficit, I repeat that there are other open methods which it could use. Incidentally, at whose costs will the non-existent deficit of the CRTC be reduced? Ultimately it will be the consumer because we are talking about television viewers, radio broadcast listeners and telephone subscribers when we are talking about regulating through the CRTC. As I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary lauding the Government's efforts in managing the economy and moving toward greater fiscal control, I could not help but stop to think about what is happening to Canadians in today's society and to their disposable income. If we consider the November statement of 1984 and the Budgets of May 1985 and February 1986, I think we will see a somewhat different picture emerge from that which the Parliamentary Secretary would have us believe. There are the increased federal taxes, the deindexation and the surtaxes and in the end the disposable income of many families, particularly those at the low and middle income range, is detrimentally affected.
I would like to give a few figures so that Hon. Members in the House and those who are listening can make some enlightened decisions for themselves. The tax measures introduced by the Government in the November 1984 Statement and the May 1985 and February 1986 Budgets, are
Railway Act
affecting the personal income taxes of individuals in a considerable way, and reducing their purchasing capacity and their cash-in-pocket situation. We will have $570 million less to spend because of the modified indexation measures, that is, the 3 per cent reduction in the tax tables for everyone throughout Canada. A second example is the elimination in May of 1985 of the federal tax reduction. That will cost Canadians $490 million. A third example is the 5 per cent and 10 per cent surtaxes on our basic federal tax which was introduced in May of 1985. Because of those surtaxes, average consumers are being soaked an additional $550 million. When we consider the deductions which are now not allowed under the Registered Homeownership Savings Plan, we see an another $80 million which Canadians cannot put aside as a saving. The 3 per cent surtax on personal income tax, introduced in February of this year, has meant an additional $560 million which is not available and in circulation for the Canadian consumer.
When we consider the effects of sales taxes and excise taxes, some of which are visible and some of which are not, we see some rather staggering amounts which no longer are available to the Canadian consumer, particularly those in the low and middle income range, but obviously this affects all of us. The broadening of the sales tax base as a result of the 1986 Budget has meant that $510 million is no longer available to average Canadian consumers. The 1 per cent sales tax increase alone in May 1985 has meant $990 million is no longer available to us. The additional 1 per cent increase in sales tax which was introduced in February of this year has meant an additional $815 million cleverly soaked up, with very little political impact-although that will eventually happen-because it is virtually a hidden tax which no one can see at the moment of purchase.
The excise taxes of various kinds introduced in the Financial Statement of November 1984, and the Budgets of 1985 and 1986, amount to some $3 billion being taken out of the taxpayers' pockets. We can see from a personal income tax point of view that that is an incredible reduction of available cash.
The total cost of all this to low and middle income consumers is $2,695 billion. I would like to suggest that it is a very sad situation, indeed. Close to $3 billion is being taken out of our pockets. The move on the part of the Conservatives to implement something of what they call good social policy, such as the modification to the family package which includes the child tax credit, the child exemption and the family allowance, looks good on paper. It is going to cost $35 million in 1986-87. But it is really not as good as it would seem because it is a deindexation policy and changes thresholds so less and less people are going to have less and less money at their disposal.
The other issue is the increase in the RRSP limits. At this point it is at the $7,500 level but will be moving up to $15,500. That is very nice for those who can afford it. It will cost the Treasury $40 million this year.
With respect to the capital gains exemption, I think we have said plenty in this House about boats and so on, and how the

October 20, 1986
Railway Act
wealthy can get wealthier and protect their income at a cost to our Treasury of $600 million. If we look at the refundable sales tax credit, we see that as perhaps the only good measure brought in to date. We are talking there about returning $200 million to those people who earn the very low income of $15,000 or less, but the poverty line is at $23,000, so I would suggest that is not as good as it would seem on paper. Some $3 billion is going out and less than $1 billion is coming in. I would suggest that that is not equity.
I would like to draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to the news release of June 26, 1986 when this same amendment to the Railway Act was first introduced. That news release states:
The amount collected from carriers regulated by the Government of Canada will (under this Bill) correspond directly to the costs incurred by the CRTC in regulating the telecommunications industry.
I have read Bill C-4 very carefully and there is nothing in it which in any way states that the amount of money collected from carriers will correspond directly to the costs incurred by the CRTC in regulating the telecommunications industry. Rather, a reading of Bill C-4, and in particular, the added Section 321.1(1) to the Railway Act, discloses that the CRTC is given the power to make regulations, imposing the fees to be charged to the telecommunication carriers such as Bell Canada and B.C. Telephone. Nowhere in this Section or in the Act is it stated that the regulations eventually put out by the CRTC must set fees which will correspond to the costs incurred by it in regulating the telecommunications industry. In other words, if the costs incurred by the CRTC in regulating telecommunication companies is to be a total of $6 million, Bill C-4 completely fails to require the CRTC to set the fees it will charge those telecommunication companies at that same amount. The Act could readily have provided for this but has failed to do so.
The amount looks small in terms of dollars right now, but there is nothing in the legislation to confine it to that amount of money, and if one is operating the CRTC on the basis of the Broadcasting Act, as indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary, we might then be looking at another potential way of raising over $54 million.
Since Bill C-4 fails to direct the CRTC, or give any guidance to the CRTC as to the amount of the fees to be levied, or the basis upon which these fees are to be determined, is it the intention of the Minister of Communications to issue directives to the CRTC so as to ensure that the fees charged in a given year will at least correspond to the costs of regulating the telecommunication industries? Or will she direct the rate of return for the telecommunciations corporations or the CRTC? The Minister should make known her intentions in this matter as soon as possible, and I would suggest that she will have to consult with Treasury Board as it seems to be empowered, from the first line of this amendment, to veto or to direct the CRTC's decisions. Who will be making the decisions, Madam Speaker, the Department of Communications, the Treasury Board or the CRTC, or will there be enlightened discussions between all three? It is far from clear.
When I read Bill C-4 I find that the proposed Section 321.1(4) would enable the CRTC to assess these new fees to telecommunication companies on a retroactive basis. I have a number of concerns with this clause. First, retroactive provisions should always be carefully scrutinized, for such provisions have the effect of changing the rules of the industry in the middle of the game. Has the Government demonstrated that such retroactivity is absolutely necessary? Why should the Bill allow for retroactive fees to be charged by the CRTC when the CRTC is already operating on a highly profitable basis? Why the sudden need for retroactive fees to be assessed? If the Government was of the view that the telecommunications industry was not paying its fair share to the CRTC in past years, then why did it not ensure the Bill's passage last year? Had this been done there would be no need for the Bill before us to allow for a retroactive application.
Furthermore, if the Bill is passed and the CRTC assesses fees to companies such as Bell Canada on a retroactive basis, then Bell's shareholder, Bell Canada Enterprises, and ultimately the individual shareholders of Bell Canada Enterprises, will likely have to absorb those fees. In other words, Bell may not be in a position to ask for a rate increase to allow it to recoup from telephone subscribers those fees assessed on a retroactive basis. This may not be an objectionable result. I raise it so that the Government will be in a better position to appreciate all the consequences which would flow from a retroactivity clause.
In my view the question of absorbing the costs implicit in the application of this Bill involves new dollars which should be borne by the shareholder as a cost of enjoying the privileges of ownership of a public monopoly utility, and not a hidden potential increased cost to the subscriber.
Furthermore, with respect to the subject of retroactivity, the addition of Section 321.1(4) to the Railway Act does not absolutely require that fees be assessed against the telecommunications industry on a retroactive basis. Rather, it provides that the fees will only have retroactive effect if the regulations eventually established by the CRTC "so provide". These regulations are subject to the approval of Treasury Board. In other words, the Government has left it to the CRTC to decide whether or not fees should be assessed retroactively, but gives it no final authority or decision-making power. The Government should make clear to the House why it felt the need to leave the question of retroactivity unclear.
What guidelines does the Government expect the CRTC to employ in making its recommendations on this point? Will the Treasury Board be setting the guidelines pursuant to the powers granted to it under the proposed Section 321.1(1)? If the CRTC is to follow the intentions expressed by the Minister of Finance in his May, 1985 Budget, to recoup for the CRTC the full cost of regulation, then there will be no need for the CRTC to charge retroactive fees, since the CRTC already recovers revenues which far exceed its costs of operations.
October 20, 1986

Further, the retroactivity date is March 31, 1986. It will take at least a year, at breakneck speed, for all the normal administrative procedures and notices of motion by the CRTC to be acted upon before we will begin to see the application of this recommendation with respect to the fee assessment. That means not before 1988. This could mean big dollars, and for whom?
The Government seems to expect that Bill C-4 would allow the CRTC to recover at least its operating costs of $6 million beginning in 1986-87 by assessing fees against telecommunication companies such as Bell Canada, B.C. Telephone, CNCP Telecommunications, Telesat and others.
The critical question is, what will companies such as Bell Canada do if it is assessed large fees in future years pursuant to the authority of this legislation? I expect that Bell will contend that such fees increase its operating costs. I would not be surprised if Bell then applied to the CRTC for a rate increase with respect to the sums it charges for telephone services. And who will be asked to pay any such rate increase? It goes without saying that it will be the telephone subscriber. This will be so whether the subscriber is an individual or a business, in particular a small business. The fees to be levied by the CRTC on companies such as Bell will eventually be paid for out of the pocket of telephone subscribers. These are the results that are almost sure to follow if Bill C-4 is passed in its present form.
What does the Government expect me to say to the many senior citizens living in my riding on fixed incomes when they ask me why their monthly telephone charges have been increased? Does the Government expect me to tell these citizens that they are being charged more for telephone services because the CRTC needs more money? I have already demonstrated today that the CRTC does not need more money. Does the Government want me to tell these people to do without a telephone if they cannot afford to pay the charges? Surely the Government must realize that in our modern world a telephone is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Once again, I must ask whether the Government has fully thought through the consequences that could flow directly from the enactment of this Bill? I for one am not sure that it has.
Only a few days ago telephone subscribers received relief from the CRTC in the form of an order that Bell Canada refund to subscribers two months' worth of basic charges and provide lower long distance rates in the future. This decision was welcomed by the Minister and by everyone in the House. It was certainly welcomed by my Party and by consumers who have long yearned for lower telephone rates. We now find that what the CRTC gave telephone subscribers with one hand the Government looks to take away with another through Bill C-4. The Bill may ultimately result in increased telephone rates. It seems that the Government will not give consumers a break. It intends to pour cold water on the heads of telephone subscribers. How does the Government spell relief? Is it through Bill C-4, which could be subtitled "a Bill to enrich the treasury"?
Railway Act
There are many telephone subscribers in the country who are served by provincially-owned telephone companies not regulated by the CRTC, such as the Manitoba Telephone System, Sask Tel, and Alberta Government Telephones. Therefore, since the CRTC would be unable to levy fees or charges against a company such as the Manitoba Telephone System, telephone subscribers in Manitoba will think themselves immune from the higher telephone bills which could flow from this Bill. These telephone subscribers may be mistaken. We will have to wait and see what the court decision involving AGT, the provincially-owned telephone company in Alberta, may suggest with respect to CRTC regulation.
1 point out to Members of the House that this Bill could also allow the CRTC to assess new fees against CNCP Telecommunications. We will want to know whether these fees will be passed on by CNCP to consumers in the form of higher telex and telegram rates. I do not know if they will be touched or not; but it is certainly something worthy of examination.
I have outlined the serious reservations which my Party has with respect to Bill C-4. These reservations include the retroactivity provision; the question of whether the CRTC really needs the new fees to be levied under the authority of Bill C-4; whether the subscriber or the shareholder will bear the burden of the costs; and whether we really need to raise new moneys in this manner. Perhaps we should be looking at a method of redistribution in some way.
Our most serious reservation is that any such fees levied by the CRTC against the telephone companies could very well be passed on to telephone subscribers by way of increased rates. I outlined the tremendous burden which is now being borne, particularly by middle and low income Canadians, due to the last two Budgets and the November, 1984 statement. I hope we will find no new hidden ways to increase costs to subscribers and, therefore, to consumers.
My Party insists that the entire Bill-its three paragraphs- be referred, preferably to the standing committee but, if not, to a legislative committee for review and amendment. I would insist that the committee afford the telecommunication companies and the consumer groups a full right of hearing. While the Bill is in committee, my Party will attempt to ensure that the amendments which are made will prevent the telecommunication companies from passing on any portion of these new fees to telephone subscribers.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I am indeed pleased to see you in the chair today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, Bill C-4 is an Act to amend the Railway Act. It is an Act which would permit the CRTC to collect fees from the telecommunications industry for its services in regulating this industry.

October 20, 1986
Railway Act
We have been told that the Government's purpose in introducing this legislation is to reduce the deficit. Let us be very clear. The amounts of money that are expected to be collected are certainly not going to do very much about reducing the deficit. It is estimated that it would take $6 million per year to recover the costs of regulation of telecommunications.
Let us be very clear from the beginning that the Government is not reducing the deficit. It is attempting to reduce the rate of increase in the deficit but the deficit itself is still accumulating. We have an enormous accumulated deficit which is still increasing.
If we want to talk about decreasing the deficit, we should look to the example of the Tommy Douglas Government in Saskatchewan. That CCF Government actually decreased the deficit which had been accumulated by previous Liberal Governments. At the same time, that Government spent the taxpayers' money so wisely that it pioneered the social programs of Canada. This Bill is not in the same league as legislation by Tommy Douglas and the CCF/NDP, I am very sorry to say.
This Government wants to reduce the increase in the deficit and do it by collecting fees from the telecommunications industry through the CRTC. The principle of cost recovery itself is a reasonable one. It is employed in other industries. For example, farmers who benefit from the regulation of farm marketing products pay for this service. That is certainly fair and I believe the model we have here is appropriate as well. I do not object to the principle of cost recovery in the Bill, but I certainly do have a number of reservations about it.
We have seen a very bad example of cost recovery in the Forget inquiry. The unemployed are expected to bear the costs of a $6-million inquiry. Rather than having the Government take the cost of this inquiry from general revenues, it is coming out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. That is a most inappropriate example of user-pay.
In principle, user-pay in this Bill is all right. However, let us be clear. This is an industry that makes a great deal of money. If the Government really wanted to tackle the deficit, it would look far more broadly to corporate taxation. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the way to attack the deficit is by cleaning up the public sector. I fhink the way to attack the deficit is by collecting taxes from those who can pay them. There are 79,000 wealthy corporations that show profits but do not pay a dime in taxes. If we were really serious about deficit reduction and about fairness, we would be going after those corporations and not after telephone subscribers.
If the CRTC is correct, it would take about $6 million to recover these costs. The CRTC is already making its so-called profit by collecting from the broadcasting sector. It takes roughly $19 million to administer the broadcasting sector and the CRTC collects about $25 million per year. Collecting $6 million from the telecommunications sector would be fair. If the broadcasting sector is paying for its regulatory fees, why
should it subsidize the telecommunications sector? However, it is true that the CRTC is collecting more money than it costs to operate. In a sense, this is a way of collecting taxes in an indirect fashion. I do not think that is a healthy thing to do.
Corporations could be paying more taxes. This $6 million that will be received from the telecommunications industry is not a large amount of money. Bell Canada's profits alone are in the order of $ 1 billion per year.
I believe the Liberal spokesperson was unduly alarmist about how these costs would be passed on to the consumers. Even if they were passed on to the consumers, the cost would be practically incalculable. Of course, there is no reason the costs should be passed on to consumers and I do not think the CRTC should permit that. That would be unreasonable. Profits in that sector are very substantial. This is a monopoly utility and there is no reason for the consumers to pay these additional costs.
The legislation is not clear about companies being assessed only what it costs to regulate them. The Government has stated that this is a cost-recovery measure, but the legislation does not say that. Perhaps the legislation should be absolutely clear on that point.
There is also provision in the legislation for retroactive collection. I do not want to be alarmist about this, because the amounts are so small relative to this industry, but the retroactive principle is not a good one. It is one at which we should certainly take a look.
I have another reservation about the requirement for Treasury Board approval. According to the Bill, the CRTC may make regulations imposing fees, levies or charges subject to the approval of the Treasury Board. What should the role of the Treasury Board be? If we believe that the CRTC should be at arm's length, why should the Treasury Board be active in this capacity?
Why should the legislation not be absolutely clear as to how much will be collected, not in terms of dollar amounts but in terms of the criteria by which it would be collected? The legislation is not clear about whether or not this collection is, strictly speaking, cost recovery. In the case of broadcasting, it is not simply cost recovery but is actually profit making. It is ironic that the CRTC makes a profit from the broadcasting sector. The CRTC does not earn its pay from the public purse because it regulates the broadcasting sector so very poorly. It has let down the public on matters like portrayal of women, Canadian content and the creation of jobs for Canadian playwrights, writers, actors and the like.
In the case of the telecommunications sector, Bill C-4 is very well timed. It is being brought in at a time when the CRTC has just come up with an excellent decision regarding the telecommunications industry. All of Canada is pleased to see that the public interest and consumers are being served by this decision. The CRTC has actually done a good job, yet it is a job on which it has not made a dime. It does, however, make
October 20, 1986

its money from a sector for which it does not do its job adequately at all.
The companies that would be affected by this legislation include the largest of the communications companies, Bell Canada, as well as B.C. Telephone and smaller communications companies such as Terra Nova Tel, NorthwestTel, CNCP Telecommunications and Telesat Canada.
A substantial number of companies will be affected by the legislation. Bell Canada has enormous profits. B.C. Telephone is not quite as large but it is also a pretty substantial company. Last year its operating revenues were $1.4 billion and it had after-tax profits of nearly $100 million. That is the kind of money out there in the industry. If the Government collected corporate taxes with the same vigour it pursues personal taxes, we would not be worried about getting an extra $6 million. In effect this is a tax increase for corporations. However, it is a small increase; it is under 1 per cent.
Let us look at the tax increase average Canadians have faced over the last couple of years. Of course they have been enormous. As well, there has been a deindexation of the family allowance, tax increases in personal income tax, and increases in sales tax and excise tax-the hidden taxes. We must be concerned about the way the Government is collecting taxes through sales tax and excise tax. The use of hidden taxes is not a very healthy way to collect money. Individual taxpayers are being soaked. However this is a tax increase, as long as the CRTC does not allow companies to pass it on to subscribers. As I said, it is a very small tax increase for companies which are doing extremely well with their monopolies.
The CRTC did its job properly on Bell Canada last week. It was a record-making decision. Over $200 million will be rolled back and there will be a reduction in long distance charges as of January 1. It is an extremely important decision, worth over $200 million to consumers. We must ensure that there is not a reversal of this decision with the $6 million and that the decision actually takes effect. I hope the Government has given the decision some thought. I also hope that we will have a firm commitment from the Government that it will not reverse the CRTC decision. Of course Bell Canada is entitled to go to the courts. The Government of Canada cannot stop Bell Canada from going to the courts, but at this point it could at least say that it will not reverse the CRTC decision. That would be a very important statement. At least that commitment could be given.
Bill C-4 before us today poses the risk that consumers will be charged more, depending on what is done by the CRTC. At the very least, the Government should come clean with taxpayers and subscribers and say that it will defend the CRTC decision. It should ensure that the $6 million will not be passed on to consumers and that the $200 million will stand as it is.
Railway Act
In conclusion, I have some reservations about parts of the Bill. Certainly matters can be looked at in committee, such as the retroactive question or, being very specific, or the purpose of the Bill in terms of cost recovery. We do not want to see it as simply another way of raising taxes indirectly, which is not the way taxes should be raised. Aside from the very particular points which can be addressed, I think cost recovery is appropriate in this area.
1 am sorry the Government is not more frank about its role in life. I am sorry it is trying to parade this past us as a measure which will do a lot more than in fact it can do. It will not reduce the deficit. Even if it were a larger amount, it would not reduce the deficit. It is a very modest measure. I do not object to the direction in which it is going, but let us not pretend that this increase to, a very small tax for very wealthy corporations will put Canada's financial house in order and address the deficit. Certainly this bashing of the public sector, that somehow if we clean up the public sector and forget about the fact that corporations are not paying their fair share, will not wash. The Government could have presented this piece of legislation in a fairer or straighter way to the Canadian public, but its substance in terms of cost recovery is appropriate.


Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Madam Speaker, I should first like to congratulate you on your new position. Certainly it is good to see one woman in the chair and one man about to speak on the Bill this morning. Indeed it is a pleasure to address Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Railway Act. It supports a basic principle of the Government to establish a business-like approach in the conduct of its own operations.
Before addressing the Bill directly, I should like to raise a couple of comments concerning those of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) who indicated that there are more poor people in Canada now than there were before the Government took over. Since the Government has taken over, the number of Canadians living below the poverty line fell by
300,000	last year, the first such decline since 1981. Real family income increased last year for the first time since 1980. I just wanted to ensure that the record was straight in that regard so that Canadians understand that the Government is getting people off the welfare rolls.


Sheila Finestone: The record should show that I talked about disposable income, not about the level of poverty.


James Eber Caldwell: Since the Government has come into power, some 600,000 jobs have been created and 328,000 jobs have been for women, which should please the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. I could go on, but I know that I must deal with the topic at hand.
I should like to revert a little and deal with the cultural field. The Hon. Member did not mention some of the initiatives taken by the Government, very recently as a matter of fact. The Government is in every way supporting the cultural and communications industry like no other Government has for many years. Of course the CBC was brought into operation by

October 20, 1986
Railway Act
a Conservative Government and has been supported throughout the years by this Government and others. The amount of $75 million was announced in the February 26 Budget for 1986-87 and $375 million over five years, an increase of 6 per cent for cultural industries. For the film and video industry, $33 million in 1986-87 and $165 million over five years, was announced on July 17, 1986. For book publishing, $13 million in 1986-87 and $65 million over five years. That is an increase of 25 per cent announced on June 18, 1986. It included an additional $4.8 million for the Canada Council over two years for publishing. The list goes on. For music and recording, $5 million in 1986-87 and $25 million over five years was announced on September 26, 1986, just a few weeks ago. These figures indicate that the Government certainly cares about the communications and cultural industry, which will continue to grow and prosper under us.
I should like to address the Bill before us. Canada is a big country. We are talking about a change in the Railway Act. I am sure some people wonder what that has to do with the communications industry, why we have to legislate through the Railway Act. There might even be those people who would say that we should be introducing a Bill to make some changes in our railroads. That may well come too.
However, while we are debating a change to the Railway Act, we are debating a Bill which originally concerned the communications system of the railways. Most of us are aware of the telegraph poles along railway lines. Of course today the communications industry operates on a much different scale with microwaves and satellite receivers.
I do not think many of us realize the necessity of the telephone today. Perhaps we have come to take it for granted in many cases. Certainly many of us would find our lives a lot different if we did not have a telephone system. In our vast country communications represent an essential link between all people. Canada's very existence as a country depends upon reliable and efficient communications. This is why we identify communications and telecommunications, particularly the telephone service about which we are talking today, as services that should be available to all Canadians at a reasonable cost.
Canadian industry has been very responsive to the needs of the country. Our needs have been met and continue to be met with innovative solutions that are among the best in the world. The quality and affordability of our telecommunication services are world class. Statistics show that Canada has one of the highest rates of access per capita in the world. More than 98 per cent of Canadian homes have at least one telephone. We also have the distinction of being known as the people who talk the most on the telephone. We have achieved a telecommunication system to be proud of through the strengths of our telecommunications industry working in concert with government regulators.
The regulatory process itself has played an essential role by maintaining a careful balance between the revenue requirements of the industry and the essential social goal of making universal telephone service available at affordable prices. And, as the CRTC demonstrated not too long ago, the regulatory process does work. In the period from 1979 to 1984 when inflation was rampant the telephone companies were granted regular rate increases. Since this Government was elected, the process of economic renewal has begun, inflation has been tamed and the CRTC has acted accordingly in ordering rebates and rate reductions to take into account Bell Canada's improved financial situation. These rate reductions should further stimulate economic growth, and both business users and residential subscribers will benefit directly from them.
In recent years we have seen the introduction of an element of competition in telecommunications and this trend is likely to continue. We also recognize that to be viable and prosperous our industries must be competitive in the world market and we support their endeavours. In keeping with this new environment, the Government is committed to reducing the regulatory burden on industry. The market must be allowed to operate if Canadian entrepreneurs are to maintain and augment their competitive edge in an increasingly unified North American market. However, as long as local telephone service and other essential services continue to be provided on a monopoly basis, the public interest must be protected. The Government must remain vigilant about possible negative impacts. Affordable, accessible, universal service must be maintained and the interests of consumers upheld, even as entrepreneurial development is encouraged.
As more and more services are deregulated, it is certain that the cost of regulating will decline. However, new problems are likely to arise making it more than ever necessary to maintain an effective regulatory process. The regulator must have the means to ensure that monopoly profits are not used to subsidize the competitive activities of the company. Without such safeguards, Madam Speaker, the interests of the telephone subscriber could be endangered, as could the principle of fair and equitable competition.
Bill C-4 respects these goals. On the one hand it establishes the regulation of the industry on a full cost recovery basis. On the other hand, it ensures that the quality of regulation can be rendered immune from cost cutting. Placing the regulation of telecommunications on a cost-recovery basis will provide a powerful incentive for the CRTC to keep tight control over expenses, because regulation is an open and public process. With the passage of Bill C-4, the costs associated with the activities of the CRTC will be recovered directly from the industry rather than forming part of the Government's over-all fiscal framework.
This element of public accountability, which could make the cost of regulation an issue at public rate hearings, is an incentive to achieve a regulatory process which is both efficient and cost effective. The amounts that this Bill will recover from the industry may seem rather small in comparison with the
October 20, 1986

massive federal deficit that our Government inherited from the previous administration. However, the ramifications of this measure encompass much more than the moneys cited.
When the Government is presented with an alternative which can render a public service more responsive to the needs of those served while at the same time reducing the burden on the taxpayer, I think we would all agree that it is the duty of the Government to assume such a measure. The implementation of such a measure will serve as an effective demonstration of the Government's resolve to place many of its operations on a full cost-recovery basis, and this in itself is part of the larger task of restoring financial responsibility in the country. I believe that Bill C-4 has much merit and that it deserves the full consideration and support of the House.
As 1 pointed out at the beginning of my speech, many people may not quite understand exactly why we are doing what we are doing at this time and why the measure is under the Railway Act. Let me point out that Canada has something of which to be very proud in the telecommunications industry. We have been the leaders in the telecommunications field and I am sure we will continue to be. We must also make sure that consumers are protected. I would like nothing better than not to have any regulations at all in some of these areas and to let the free enterprise system take its course. Whether the telephone system is an essential service or not is debatable, but 1 think many of us consider today that it is. We have to remember that the telephone system has to be available to the citizens of Canada, and we want to make sure it stays that way. That is why our Government will be taking steps from time to time to make sure that monopolies, such as the telephone systems, are regulated and that people will have an opportunity through the regulatory process to make sure they have their say about the operations of the monopolies.
I think we all realize that the telephone system was inaugurated in Canada, although the Americans sometimes like to take that credit away from us. It has been a great service to us at a reasonable cost. Under this Bill consumers will have the opportunity to hear from the CRTC, and if it opposes the regulations how the formula for rates will be worked out.
As I mentioned, the $6 million that we will recover under this Bill may not seem like much with the deficit that we have, but the deficit is heading in the right direction. You may recall, Madam Speaker, that when our Government took over the deficit was running at an extremely high level. We have been able to bring it down to the neighbourhood of $32.5 billion through a tremendous effort on behalf of our Government. We should be applauding Canadians in many areas for their help. We have asked the farmers to help with cost recovery. We have asked the voters to help with cost recovery. Now we are asking the regulators of the telephone service to be involved in cost recovery. I think that is only fair. Those are just some of things we are trying to do.
Let me add that we can telephone from our homes to almost anyplace in the world. Most of us can dial directly, although in some places we still have to use operators. It is a marvel how
Railway Act
the system works. I do not understand how it works. Maybe some other Hon. Members know more about how the system works, but it certainly works. Other countries do not have a telephone system that works as well as ours. We are very proud of our telephone system in Canada and we should remain proud of it.
Our Government will continue to watch the purse strings, making sure we are getting our fair share of revenue, but not forgetting those people who have to use the telephone service on a regular basis. As Members of Parliament we hear from our constituents often about the telephone system, the Post Office and many other problem areas that exist today. I do not think we hear as many complaints about the telephone system as we do about other agencies. The system in operation in Canada today is one of the best in the world and people recognize that. We do not have that many problems with the telephone service, at least not where I live in the beautiful area of Essex-Kent. We still have some services which are not part of the Bell Canada system: one of the few left in the area. We still have a central-


An Hon. Member:: Do you still have the crank?


James Eber Caldwell: Yes, we still have the crank on the phone; one long, three short. Perhaps in Vancouver they still have the central operators where one long and three short means something. That was our old phone number many years ago.
I do want to say that I hope we have the support of the House. We would like to get this Bill through. It is not a Bill which will shake the rafters of the country, but it is an important step in this Government's effort to make sure people know where we are going in communications, and I hope we get quick passage.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments?


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, in light of my colleague's comments, I want to tell you that I still have a country phone with one long and two short. The Hon. Member made some remarks with respect to the pride he feels as a Conservative in that his Party founded the CBC. I would be anxious to hear his reaction to the remarks of the well-known, highly-respected journalist and broadcaster who has given so much to our country, both in its oral and written history, someone we all respect and admire. I refer to Pierre Berton. I would like to quote from an article in The Sunday Herald of October 19, and 1 would then like a response from my hon. friend. The article says:
Tories killing CBC: Berton
The Conservatives are slowly but surely killing the CBC and other cultural agencies that spawned a strong Canadian culture in the last 30 years, says author-broadcaster Pierre Berton.
"Television is our most important Canadian institution because it provides the glue that holds us together," he said Friday.
"It's our new national dream just as the railroad once was."

October 20, 1986
Railway Act
Berton and other prominent Canadians are featured speakers at the Council of Canadians, a nationalist organization holding its second annual meeting in Ottawa.
"But the Conservatives don't understand that. In my opinion, the Conservative caucus wants to destroy the CBC. But they know they can't do that or sell it to their friend John Bassett. So they are doing it by attrition, by cutting the budget every year.''
Berton said proposals for a further $50 million cut in the CBC budget on top of the $133 million in cuts the Conservatives have already ordered are monstrous especially after a federal task force called for stronger public broadcasting in Canada.
1 would like an enlighted response from my hon. friend. Do you agree with Pierre Berton or do you not?


James Eber Caldwell: Madam Speaker, I must say that certainly Pierre Berton is a very respected author and broadcaster in this country and he is entitled to his views. I do not believe this Government is strangling the CBC, or whatever word he happened to use. It is my understanding that the CBC has had one of its most successful seasons. They had many enjoyable programs, including Mr. Berton's, on the air last year. We have asked the CBC to tighten up a little bit on its operating expenses and get itself in line, but it has known about that since 1984. A cut was made at that time but there have not been any cuts since then. We have asked the CBC to live within its budget.
As I pointed out, and I should not have to repeat this, our commitment to the cultural industry has been unprecedented over the past two years. As 1 pointed out, there was an increase of $375 million over five years in support of cultural industries. That is unprecedented. For the film and video industry there has been $33 million for 1986-87, and $165 million over the next five years. The Minister announced that on July 17. There was $13 million in 1986-87 for the book publishing industry, and $65 million over five years, an increase of 25 per cent.
The Hon. Member and Mr. Berton talk about us cutting back on funds to our cultural industries. I see no indication of that at all. I do not think any Members here could possibly read that into these figures. There was $5 million in 1986-87 for the music and recording industry. I am sure Mr. Berton and others like to enjoy recorded music by Canadians, as do I, as do you and as the Hon. Member does. That amounts to some $25 million over the next five years.
Mr. Berton says the Conservative caucus is trying to destroy the CBC. I know we are not supposed to talk about things that happen in caucus, but I do not recall the CBC being debated in caucus. Not when I was there. The Hon. Member knows that my ears perk up when I hear about the CBC, having spent several years with that organization. I think I know whether it was discussed and whether the Tory caucus is trying to destroy it. If anything, we are bolstering the CBC. As a matter of fact, over the last two years the CBC has done some tremendous work. Some tremendous programs have been produced. It may not be the old CBC, the way it used to be, but things have to change. I think they have changed for the better.
Do I agree with Mr. Berton? I certainly do not.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has been very misleading in his remarks. It is easy to get up and refer to an increase here, an increase there, a percentage here and a dollar there. He has not looked at the total picture. The total picture is of a net decrease. There has not been so much as a cost of living increase, as promised to people in the cultural community, a promise made by the Conservatives over the course of the 1984 election campaign. Yes, there is an increase here and an increase there-


Miss MacDonald:: They add up.


Lynn McDonald: -but the decreases are greater than the increases. In the case of book publishing, where the Hon. Member refers to an increase, that increase is not as great as the amount of money taken out of book publishing by the new tariff. It is entirely misleading to talk about an increase because it is a net decrease.
The Conservatives practised this kind of obfuscation with regard to the family allowances and child tax credit. Instead of slashing everything at once, they increased the child tax credit while they decreased the family allowance and now plan to decrease the child tax credit later. They have everybody bamboozled. They can go around saying, we have increased support for families, and they are doing precisely the same thing in the cultural industry. In fact the decreases have been greater than the increases even in specific areas.


James Eber Caldwell: Madam Speaker, that was very much the same question and I do not want to go through the same answer again. I just want to assure the Canadian people that certainly this Government has every intention of supporting the cultural and communications industry.
I just want to take this opportunity to congratulate the new Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) on her appointment, and I am sure we can expect greater things over the next two, four, six or eight years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I would really like my friend to be precise. I will take up from where the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) left off. Let us just talk about the CBC, as you were a staff member there and are proud of the CBC. I am sure you were not particularly pleased with the-


Mr. McKinnon:: Order!


Sheila Finestone: Who is calling "order"?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I am.


Sheila Finestone: Why?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, it is not customary for Members to be addressed by the personal pronoun. The Hon. Member has been here long enough to know that she should
October 20, 1986

refer to the gentleman's constituency when she is speaking about him in the House of Commons.


Mr. Rossi:: That is what she did.


Sheila Finestone: I referred to my hon. friend, I did not refer to his riding.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) knows that she should refer to the Hon. Member by his riding and not necessarily by his former employment. Please continue.


Sheila Finestone: Could the Hon. Member tell me whether the CBC suffered a cut of $50 million in addition to the $133 million cut?


James Eber Caldwell: Madam Speaker, I do not want to go through this again. In the November, 1984 statement the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced a $70 million cut in the CBC budget.


Sheila Finestone: Seventy-five million dollars.


James Eber Caldwell: Okay, a $75 million cut. There has been no cut since that time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Miss MacDonald seconded by Mr. Mazankowski, moved that Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Railway Act, be read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee.
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 referred to a Legislative Committee.

Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-2, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise on second reading of Bill C-2, an Act to repeal the Canagrex Act and to dissolve the Crown corporation. I am sure the reasons for this Bill are well known. In his November, 1984, economic statement, my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), announced
Canagrex
the Government's intention to phase out Canagrex by April of 1985. The initiative was aimed at reducing government spending. However, there was more to it than that. We also believed that Canagrex was not going to achieve the targets set out for it as a corporation. Certainly the industry was not going to use the Crown corporation in the manner planned.
As Members familiar with the corporation know, Canagrex was to identify new markets, to promote exports of Canadian products, to participate in state-to-state trading, to provide export counselling to the industry, to make available grants, contributions, loans, and loan guarantees and to import, export, buy and sell. I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, and all members of the House would agree that these are all very worthy goals. However, when we undertook to phase out Canagrex we believed that existing government departments could co-operate with the private sector to pursue these trade goals more effectively. Indeed, that has proven to be the case.
The Agricultural Products Board, External Affairs, the Export Development Corporation and, of course, my Department, Agriculture Canada, are the key federal players. The Agricultural Products Board has the power to buy and sell if necessary, and it does so. The Export Development Corporation provides insurance, loans and guarantees. About a year ago the EDC introduced a credit insurance program for exporters of up to 360 days for bulk agricultural products. This followed the work of an interdepartmental task force. In January of this year the EDC introduced another credit insurance program of up to three years. The programs cover grains, oil seeds, pulse, tobacco, animal products, seeds and genetic material. These important initiatives by the EDC have succeeded in putting our agricultural exporters in a much better competitive position. In fact, we expect that about $200 million worth of product will have moved under these programs by the end of the year.
The Department of External Affairs plays an important role in the development of markets for our agricultural products. In particular, its program for export market development supports both outgoing and incoming trade missions. It also provides grants and contributions for exporters who are pursuing sales abroad.
My Department, Agriculture Canada, and External Affairs have developed a very close and effective working relationship in order to improve the environment for agricultural exporters. There are numerous examples of our co-operative efforts which are working to the great advantage of Canadian agricultural producers from coast to coast. Agriculture Canada and External Affairs work together on analysing markets and identifying new ones. We also co-operate in technical and promotional activities, seminars and trade fairs. Together these two departments are developing a service called the Export Market Information System. This system will provide up-to-date information on agricultural markets throughout the world. We have established a joint committee on international agri-food trade development. This committee ensures that the services of our two departments in the field of
510

October 20, 1986
agricultural export development are not being duplicated. It also ensures that we are combining our resources, wherever possible, in order to pinpoint new market opportunities and help the private sector take advantage of these international market opportunities.	[DOT]
Not only is interdepartment co-operation vital to the success of trade development, but co-operation in the private sector is also essential. That is why my Department is involved in providing export counselling and in co-ordinating private sector trade initiatives. Agriculture Canada staff also works with the private sector to help identify and overcome technical problems in the export market. Together we have been able to establish animal health agreements which, in turn, have opened the door to many new trade opportunities. Only last year Canada and China signed five animal health agreements covering a range of agricultural commodities. As a result, Canada has been able to make shipments of live cattle and swine into this very important export market.
My Department has been actively involved with the private sector in trade missions and seminars abroad. For instance, in recent months we sponsored a dairy seminar in Equador and one in Peru. With the help of the industry we produced an export promotion bulletin on alfalfa pellets for farm livestock and we expect to produce more bulletins in the future. We organized a dairy seminar this month in China and are organizing others in Portugal and Spain as well. We participated with other federal Departments in Food Pacific 86 which was a tremendous success in Vancouver this year. In cooperation with the private sector we are organizing a strong presence for Canada at this year's Ag China Show, just as we did last year.
Madam Speaker, I recognize that the Sergeant-at-Arms has noticed the clock, as have you and I. I think it would be appropriate for me to call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagnes):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, safer, warmer houses for needy Canadians are a goal which is
worthy of government support, especially when those houses can be provided in a way which will actually save the Government money. Yet the Government is turning its back on a national charitable organization which provides just such a service.
Frontiers Foundation has worked for two decades to provide better housing and living conditions in low-income native and non-native communities. Since 1964 it has helped to build or renovate more than 1,000 homes in disadvantaged areas.
The use of volunteers means more money can be spent on building materials. Instead of supporting this worthy organization, the federal Government has cut back its assistance to the point where there is nothing so far this year. With Frontiers Foundation, the Government gets value for money. Funding, therefore, should be reinstated.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party is urging the Government to compel the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to accept lesbians and gays. Can you feature a fairy RCMP constable trying to arrest a lumberjack with a powder puff? Can you imagine a lesbian RCMP fairy at the scene of an armed robbery screaming: "Stop, surrender, or I will hit you over the head with my purse"? If fairies were not hired, they would cry discrimination. The RCMP-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask that the Hon. Member perhaps examine some of the words in his statement which might very well be very offensive to a great number of Canadians and might cause a question of privilege or point of order in the Chamber.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is an excellent police force because it recruits men and women who meet its high standards and who can do the job required. If we compel the RCMP to accept recruits from certain groups, thus giving such groups special consideration, we will not only weaken the force but, more than that, we will discriminate against better qualified Canadians and, indeed, against the people of Canada.
The RCMP is now the finest police force in the world. Let us keep it that way. Viva the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
October 20, 1986



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, events of the last days increase our concern about the Conservative Government's multicultural policy.
The Vice-Chairman of the Canadian Multicultural Council has described his colleagues proudly as committed supporters of the Conservative Party. This advisory body was presumably responsible for the policies that the first two multiculturalism Ministers expressed in the slogans "Mainstreaming multiculturalism" and "Multiculturalism means business".
Members of many ethnocultural communities expressed their dissatisfaction with such ideas and asked the Government to support the cultivation of culture and language. Conservative Members of Parliament from the Toronto area have recently called upon the Government to take stronger and wiser action in the area of multiculturalism.
I would urge the new Minister responsible for multiculturalism to seek advice from the communities and not just from Conservative partisans. I would urge him to develop multicultural policy by fostering the diversity of Canada as well as encouraging participation in national life.
1 would urge him to remember that multiculturalism should not be political football played for partisan advantage.



EFFECT OF LEAD IN THE ENVIRONMENT-NEED FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, lead has now been added to a long list of hazardous products. The Royal Society of Canada's commission, which was formed to study the effect of lead in the environment, has just published its report.
The situation is an alarming one for Canada. Four American scientists have identified lead as causing high blood pressure, diminished intelligence and unusual behaviour in some children.
Canada continues to recycle lead from about 15,000 automobile batteries daily, and that number is rising steadily, although 1982 statistics show that 73,000 tons of lead were dumped in the environment.
Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of future generations, I ask the Government to take immediate steps to remedy this hazardous situation.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, in the Economic Council of Canada's report Changing Times, the Economic Council has indicated to us once again how important negotiating free trade with the United States is to the viability of Canada, to job-creation, to economic future, and to the prosperity for ourselves and our children.
More important, the Economic Council indicates what would happen to us if trade arrangements with the United States continue to deteriorate. It points out very clearly how much damage there would be to employment and growth from measures restricting our access to American markets.
The annual report of the revitalized Economic Council under the chairmanship of Judith Maxwell comes to grips with the real essential problems of our time and should be compulsory reading for all Members. We are in changing times. In its report the Economic Council of Canada gives direction to these changing times.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, it is being reported in the media that Canada Post intends to ask Parliament for permission to increase the rate for letters from 34 cents to 36 cents. On June 14 last year I stated in the House that, once the efficiency and service of the Post Office improved to an acceptable level, I would support a rate increase to tackle its financial difficulties. Unfortunately, neither the service nor the efficiency of Canada Post has improved enough to justify a rate increase.
Absenteeism of Canada Post workers is twice the national average and, according to officials of Canada Post, this problem alone costs the corporation S70 million a year. In Etobicoke North I continue to receive numerous calls and letters from constituents who are clearly not satisfied with the service. The main problem remains the consistency in mail delivery. This is one Tory MP who would not support a rate increase.

October 20, 1986
S.O.	21 DISASTERS



DEATH OF MOZAMBIQUE PRESIDENT IN PLANE CRASH

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the conflicting statements by the South African Government that his plane crashed because of bad weather, and by the plane's pilot that he was shot down by South African forces, will only be resolved with time. For Mozambique, one fact is tragically clear; Samora Machel, its President and father of its independence, has been killed, along with other important government officials.
We express here our sorrow and condolences to a nation and to the survivors of the deceased for their loss. But we must also note that Machel's death will bring the instability so assiduously sought by South Africa to the point of crisis, a crisis that emphasizes the need for an urgent Canadian Government response to the call by two parliamentary committees, the Special Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations and the Human Rights Committee, for an international effort to provide financial and other aid to the front line states in their resistance to the destabilization campaign by a racist and imperialist South Africa.



DISASTERS


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, following the passage of Bill C-11 by the House of Commons, more than
750,000	low-income families in Canada, including 10,000 families in the Gaspe, will enjoy a tax credit of up to $454 per child, of which $300 is to be paid shortly as an advance payment. This is very good news for needy Canadian families.
However, Mr. Speaker, my initial pleasure in being able to announce this news to our families in the Gaspe was overshadowed by the disastrous occurence that took the lives of six people, including three children, in my riding yesterday at Sainte-Anne-des-Monts. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Hon. Members and you yourself will want to join me in extending to the bereaved families our sincere condolences and to those who were injured our best wishes for a speedy recovery.



SMALL BUSINESS


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, October 19 to 25 is Small Business Week. Small
businesses depend on Canada Post and are hard hit by reduced services and higher rates.
Last Friday we learned that Canada Post is again seeking an increase of 2 cents a letter. Must this industry, this sector which creates most of our new jobs always be the scapegoat and pick up the tab for a Government which is shirking its responsibilities?

Why does the Government not live up to the promise it made on August 14, 1984, in a letter to the Postmasters' Association, and restore the quality of service without asking Canadians to pay more for less service?



REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, one of New Brunswick's economically depressed areas received a real boost, a real shot in the arm, last week when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) opened a $250 million mill on the Miramichi. It is a mill that will create 165 new jobs and maintain 1,400 others in the forest and supply sectors.
The mill owner, Mr. George Petty, paid recognition to the Prime Minister's personal intervention after the election in 1984 that helped secure financing for the mill. Now, for the first time in almost 100 years, raw forest products are being manufactured into finished products on the Miramichi.
The Prime Minister's visit was a total success. The people greeted his return to a place he once called home, with love and affection. This Prime Minister cares about small-town Canada.



FINANCE


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, today we wish to announce the sixth winner of the great untaxed corporation award which goes to Standard Trustco Limited.
Successive Liberal and Conservative Governments slavishly following the same ideology have provided so many tax concessions that Standard Trustco paid no tax in 1981, 1982, and 1985 on millions of dollars of profit. In 1979 and 1980 its tax bill was so small that the rate amounted to only 0.2 per
October 20, 1986

cent. In 1983 and 1984 its effective rate was no higher than 5 per cent.
If we had an equitable and fair tax system, and had Standard Trustco been required to pay a tax rate of 25 per cent on its profits, average Canadians would have paid $4 million less in tax because of this one company alone. On behalf of all Canadian taxpayers I announce today's award to highlight the need for real and substantive tax reform to end the give-aways perpetuated by successive Liberal and Progressive Conservative Governments.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of Persons Day, tribute is properly being paid to the five Alberta women who led the fight for women's recognition as persons in 1929. On October 18 of that year women in Canada won the legal right to be recognized as persons, thus giving Canadian women the right to become Senators. This victory was through the efforts of the five famous Alberta women: Emily Murphy, Louise McKinney, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, and Henriette Muir Edwards.
The five women to be honoured by the Governor General on October 22 with the Persons Award represent the diverse talents of women across Canada. They are: Elizabeth Carr, the Hon. Muriel McQueen Ferguson, Denyse Belanger Rochon, Berenice Sisler, and Helen Yeo. They are worthy successors to the standard of commitment set by Emily Murphy and her courageous group 56 years ago.



EXCISE TAX


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of Freedom to Read Week in Canada. However, the Government's 10 per cent retaliatory tariff on English-language books has broken a long-standing practice of all Governments exempting books from sales and excise taxes. Not even the Soviet Union and South Africa have such strong measures.
More than 80,000 postcards of protest have been sent to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) by Canadian readers. Booksellers report increasing resistance to the higher prices. Publishers are cancelling co-publishing ventures, resulting in fewer book options and potential job losses. The European Community has launched a protest against the tariff, as has the British Publishers' Association, and both are considering retaliatory measures.
The Minister of Finance proudly announced a $13 million support program for book publishing but then taxed $36 million for his Treasury. Is this a coherent Conservative policy in support of Canadian culture?
The Christmas season marks the peak period of book sales. I ask the Government once more to remove this poorly planned, ill-conceived tariff before irreversible damage is done to Canada's book publishing industry.



SMALL BUSINESS


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrate Small Business Week and honour the 750,000 Canadian men and women who create, own, and operate small businesses in all regions of the country. I am particularly pleased by the increased emphasis within the native community on developing economic self-reliance through entrepreneurship and, as well, by the growing number of women involved in small business. Indeed, in British Columbia women are starting up their own businesses twice as often as their male counterparts. The biggest single problem they face is obtaining funding. I urge the Minister to work with financial institutions to facilitate credit for women entrepreneurs.
The Government's record of support of small business and of the three million Canadians who work in this sector is clear. It can be evidenced by our efforts to reduce the tax burden on small businesses, increase by $1 billion funding for loan guarantees, free up pension funds for investment and, most important, create a climate of confidence that has led to increased investments and lower interest rates, something which is of major benefit to small businesses in Canada.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask that Liberal and NDP Members discontinue scare tactics directed at UIC claimants. Surely these claimants have enough to worry about.
Why would the Opposition make these charges about the Forget Commission report before the report has been released and before it has been made available in total to Members of Parliament and the public? This is shameful politicking.
The Forget Royal Commission Report is just that-a report. To say that it is government policy just to achieve perceived political gains is to put politics before people.

October 20, 1986
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose my question to the Minister for International Trade. Once again a major blow has been applied to Canada by the United States. Once again the Canadian Government has acted too little and too late. Once again there has been a total rejection by the United States Government of any requests for proper consultation.
Considering that a U.S. spokesman for the White House has already rejected calls for a veto, what steps will the Government of Canada now take to roll back what is clearly an illegal act on the part of the United States Congress and the President, the imposition of a surtax on all imports? Will we use all measures available to us through the international trading system?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, under Article II of the Canadian-U.S. auto agreement, it is very clear that the signatories to the agreement cannot impose any additional surtaxes or duties. Considering that this is a direct transgression of the Auto Pact agreement, will we take legal recourse to bring the United States into line with that agreement, and will we make that intention known today so that the President of the United States will know what the consequences are before he signs that appropriation Bill?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is being very helpful by identifying the areas of our concern over this move by the United States. As he has pointed out, it is a major protectionist move. It is against the obligations of the United States and I have said that we will be taking appropriate action. We have already registered our concern in this morning's letter to the White House.


NEWSPRINT EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be aware that the Government's opposition to this measure has been a matter of record since September. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said on the weekend that we consider this matter to be offensive and that we think it is wrong. Today we registered our opposition with the White House by sending a letter to Clayton Yeutter, the U.S. trade representative, urging the administration to oppose the enactment of this legislation.


CANADIAN RESPONSE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that when the question was posed two weeks ago, the Government said it would not ask President Reagan to impose a veto? Second, the White House has already rejected the notion of vetoing that legislation. What steps will the Government take to oppose what the White House itself admits is a marginally illegal act? Will we go to GATT and will we be prepared to take all steps available to us to ensure that that measure is rolled back?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member correctly points out that this move on the part of the United States is contrary to its GATT obligations and also to its public commitments made in Punta del Este and elsewhere. As the Hon. Member said, we only have the word of a White House spokesman, but if the measure does go ahead the Government will take appropriate action.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we know what "appropriate action" is. It is usually no action at all.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the world has changed. A few months ago when the cedar shakes and shingles matter arose, the Prime Minister called the U.S. President bizarre. Now we are writing letters to the White House.
Last Friday I pointed out to the Minister for International Trade that the stumpage system in Canada which produces softwood lumber is the same stumpage system which produces the raw material for newsprint. What assurances does the Minister have that the U.S. newsprint industry will not seek and receive from the U.S. Department of Commerce, based upon the same stumpage system, a 15 per cent countervail against the Canadian newsprint industry, an industry worth $4.4 billion in exports to the U.S. and, if countervailed, will cost the Canadian newsprint industry $700 million?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have said time and again in this House that the assurance we seek to stop this kind of action is a bilateral trade treaty between the United States and Canada.


PROPOSED GENERIC DRUGS LEGISLATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, that begs the question that if a bilateral free treaty were useful, why are softwood lumber, newsprint, potash, and fish not on the free trade table? One cannot have it both ways. Is the Minister prepared to commit, today in the House of Commons, that the Government will not proceed with legislation on generic drugs which it admits will cost Canadian consumers at least an additional $100 million, as long as these so-called irritants remain unresolved-
October 20, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member has put his question.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have also said time and again that what is on the negotiating table are the issues which are important in a longterm binding trade treaty with the U.S. The negotiation is about those issues which will help us develop a secure, transparent, so that we can understand them, clear trade agreement with the U.S. Then all the subjects the Hon. Member has raised which are trade irritants can be resolved in a peaceful way.


EFFECT OF UNITED STATES ACTIONS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister for International Trade. Since the Government began trade talks with the United States, the U.S. has taken action against our shakes and shingles, East Coast fishery, tube steel, and softwood. Just before the weekend it imposed another surtax, which the White House admitted is marginally illegal, goes against GATT, and goes against the Auto Pact. My question for the Minister is simple. How much abuse is the Government prepared to take before it tells the U.S. Government to take a hike on the trade talks?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has identified some of the trade issues which are in dispute between us. He has not identified about 10 issues which we have recently won in negotiations and discussions with the U.S., the 10 issues that were in Congress in a protectionist air of poison and did not make it through because of the efforts of this Government.


John Edward Broadbent: Talk about Alice in Wonderland. [Translation]


POSITION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government is negotiating with the American government with a view to signing a free trade agreement and, at the same time, the U.S. Governement imposes this surtax.
Does the Minister agree that such action clearly reflects the hypocrisy of the American Government?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, 1 might comment that I would rather be Alice in Wonderland than the Red Queen, running around crying: "Off with their heads".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: No reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I knew you would bring us back from fantasy to the real world.
May I respond to the Hon. Member's question by saying that we have already stated that we oppose this action by the Americans. It is against all their trading partners. Its impact is inconsistent with GATT. It is inconsistent with their own commitments. We will take appropriate action.


REQUEST THAT TRADE NEGOTIATIONS BE SUSPENDED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's last answer is right. It is inconsistent with GATT. It is inconsistent with the Auto Pact. It violates the understanding with the Government of Canada. The Government was opposed to all these actions in the past and has got nowhere.
Simply, if the Americans do not reverse this tax, is the Government at last prepared to say to the Americans that they are not demonstrating good faith in free trade talks and is the Government prepared to tell them that the talks, are over until they come to their senses and start treating us in a fair manner?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to explain to the Opposition that running away, turning our backs, or walking away from the table, does not help overcome this kind of harassment from the United States. The only thing that will overcome it is to sit down and conclude a free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S. which we could have in place in about 18 months.


CANADIAN POSITION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade in response to the recently imposed tariff said: "All the more reason to continue trade talks". Yet experts on both sides of the border, and the President of the United States in his letter to Mr. Packwood have said that the U.S. would never give up the right to countervail-


Mr. Crosbie:: Is this method acting, George?


George Baker: -regardless of any trade talks. My question is for the Prime Minister. How does the Prime Minister explain this completely contradictory situation and a glaring contradiction on the part of the Minister?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Economic Council has explained the benefits of freer trade arrangements with the United States by saying a free trade agreement could lead to 376,000 new jobs.


ATTITUDE TOWARD UNITED STATES
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will this Government sign an agreement with the Americans under

October 20, 1986
Oral Questions
which they will be free to impose duties-a duty here, a duty there, duties everywhere!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: By God, Mr. Speaker, it is time for Turner really to worry.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 commend my colleague for asking such a relevant question. I think that the Minister has already pointed out the benefits and problems which, of course, flow from such a complex negotiation-$150 billion a year between two partners is bound to create serious and complex problems. However the Economic Council of Canada released today a very comprehensive report entitled "Changing Times" in which it explains that the benefits for Canadians may turn out to be the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
I should think that, notwithstanding the temporary setbacks, my colleague will agree with me that these jobs are justification enough for us to remain at the bargaining table to conclude a comprehensive agreement with the Americans because it is in the national interest of Canada.


QUEBEC SUMMIT MEETING
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister not feel at this stage, with each of these attacks which has hit this country and with each of these assaults which has hit our commerce, that the agreement he had personally with Ronald Reagan has been definitely transgressed? Does the Prime Minister not feel that the good faith which lay behind that has now been destroyed?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member is ignoring the reality of the situation. There was nothing in the Shamrock Summit that said U.S. laws, or Canadian laws, must be immediately ruled out. It was very clear that the U.S. system in place and the Canadian system in place must continue. Their legislation must continue until such time as it is replaced with a trade treaty that will provide for the kind of remedies the Member is discussing.


ONTARIO POSITION ON LUMBER NEGOTIATIONS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Shamrock Summit committed both countries to respecting the other as fully as possible and to working as strongly as possible against protectionist moves. The Minister knows that.
My supplementary question to the Minister, since she chooses to answer in these cases, is, how does she intend to continue negotiations on the softwood lumber case since the
Province of Ontario has decided that it will not participate in those negotiations?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the provinces are the owners of the resource in this case. The Government of Ontario has participated in these discussions because it owns the resource. I have been advised that officials are meeting tonight to discuss what strategy is open to us, and to analyse the decision. Members of the U.S. Commerce Department are here today discussing this issue, and officials from all Governments, I am advised, are meeting tonight to discuss it.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As the person responsible for the Government, will he tell this House if it is correct that the Forget Commission has been financed from the unemployment insurance account in the amount of $5.8 million so far? If so, who approved this highly irregular expenditure of moneys destined for the unemployed, and under what authority?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Forget Commission was a commission Canadians generally had been waiting for to assess the system, and I think it is perfectly normal Canadians should assume responsibility for the costs of this commission. Perhaps the Hon. Member will recall that in 1981, the Gersberg Task Force on Unemployment Insurance, chaired by Mr. Gersberg and under a Government the Hon. Member has known quite well, was basically financed in exactly the same way.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR FINANCING
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not answered the question.
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Allmand:: That was an internal committee and quite different from a commission recommending the cutting of benefits for the unemployed. Does the Minister think it proper that a fund contributed to by workers and employers for the unemployed should be used to finance a commission like this? As well, has he checked on the legality of such an expenditure in light of Section 135 of the Unemployment Insurance Act?
October 20, 1986


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the financing application was filed with Treasury Board, and I think it is that Department's role to ascertain the legal propriety of commission financing. Whatever your assessment may be, and I think it is a rather hasty one because the Commission has yet to submit its report,
I think the entire procedure was perfectly normal and it is normal that Canadians who contribute to an insurance fund should help to assess the system with a view to approving it. I think that is perfectly normal.


RATIONALE FOR DECISION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister on the same subject. How can the Government justify spending in this fashion money which would otherwise go to the unemployed? Is this not like asking the lambs to pay for the slaughter?
[ Translation]


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, that is entirely beside the point. The unemployment insurance benefits of recipients are in no way concerned here. There is no question of reducing in any way what these people have received. There is no connection whatsoever.


REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very upset by the use of that money in this fashion.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lynn McDonald: Since these objections have been raised by the unemployed themselves, will he reimburse the fund so that no unemployed person will be injured by the Forget Commission, as the Government itself promised?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said earlier. Canadians agree that we should assess the unemployment insurance system and make the necessary improvements. It is quite normal that Canadians as a whole should contribute to this fund. I think this is perfectly acceptable and generally accepted.
Oral Questions


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-ECONOMIC COUNCIL'S PROJECTION
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. As indicated by the Prime Minister, the Economic Council of Canada stated that if we enter into a trade agreement with the U.S. it could very well result in a gross increase of some 375,000 jobs by 1995. Will the Minister advise the House if, according to the Government's own calculations, there will be a net increase or net decrease in employment and, if so, by how much?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the report was just released today. I have not had a chance to examine it in any great depth so I cannot respond directly to the Hon. Member's question. I would like to point out that the report indicates that Canada's future lies in such trade talks, and maintains that it would benefit all sectors of the economy.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. In a telegram to the Prime Minister the Canadian Chemical Society states, and I quote, that "there will never be another Nobel Prize awarded in Canada if the Prime Minister goes ahead and tears down the scientific foundation which was built up over decades". So my question to the Prime Minister is this: Will he promise to agree to the request made to him by this society, namely to save the agency which has contributed to the training of Nobel Prize laureate John Polanyi?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the House on Thursday, Dr. Polanyi did the work which led to his Nobel Prize at a university which will be one of the main beneficiaries of a program we have put in place which will produce $1 billion of new funding over the next five years.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, where is the Prime Minister hiding? Why does he not answer a question that was directed to him, not to one of his lackeys?


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. Members know that the Prime Minister may answer a question, may not answer a question, or allow a Minister to answer a question. A proper supplementary

October 20, 1986
Oral Questions
is to assist the question to be asked, not to engage in argument about who answered the last question. Will the Elon. Member put his question?


MINISTER'S POSITION
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I will try another one on him. In his book in 1983 the Prime Minister promised to increase funding for the National Research Council by 20 per cent. Why has he broken this firm promise? Why has he cut the budget of the NRC by some 30 per cent since he took office a sorry two years ago?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, again I wish to ask the Hon. Member why he insists so seriously on destroying the morale of the NRC.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: There has not been a 30 per cent cut. The NRC will experience a net increase, not only of funding but of person-years, in line with the new priorities assigned to it over the next five years.

[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. We already know that the Forget Commission will recommend cutbacks of $620 million in benefits to the unemployed in the Maritime Provinces, $930 million in Quebec and $400 million in British Columbia. Can the Minister explain why the unemployed who are receiving benefits must pay for the Forget report? Is this not tantamount to asking a condemned man to pay before going to the gallows?


Benoît Bouchard: As one can see, Mr. Speaker, any story can be made up. There is no connection at all between the Forget report recommendations and the second part of the Hon. Member's question. I can only repeat what I said earlier. When we want to improve a system, it is altogether normal to appoint a royal commission of inquiry and this is not the first time it has been done in this country, but it is paid for by all the people who contribute to the unemployment insurance fund. And this time we only did what has been done in the past, as I said.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals did this before the Conservatives, they were both wrong.


REQUEST THAT COMMISSION BE FINANCED FROM GENERAL REVENUES
Michael Morris Cassidy: This report is going to be the toughest blow to unemployed people since unemployment insurance was set up 40 years ago. Therefore, will the Minister now guarantee that he will withdraw that charge from the Unemployment Insurance Fund and have it paid out of general government revenues?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have no commitment to make in that respect today.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On August 14, 1984, the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, stated: "The Progressive Conservative Party feels that Canada Post's current program of rapid debt reduction is unrealistic, and is the underlying cause of problems with regard to both declining postal service and ventures into ill-conceived schemes to generate greater revenue".
Will the Prime Minister now explain why he is allowing Canada Post to slash service in every community in Canada while there has been a four-cent per letter increase since his Party has formed the Government?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to repeat, for the benefit of the Hon. Member, that this Government's continuing concern for the needs of all Canadians is reflected in the recommendations of the Marchment Committee which consulted with Canadians across this country. The Government wants to ensure that we can have better service at a lower cost, and of course the Canada Post Corporation is preparing a plan to that effect, a plan that the Government has under consideration. When we are ready, we will make the plan public, as soon as possible.
October 20, 1986


INQUIRY WHEN GOVERNMENT WILL TABLE PLAN PROMISED TWO YEARS AGO
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister responsible for Canada Post.
We have been promised a plan to deal with the situation at Canada Post for two years now, and a second increase in the price of postage stamps has already been announced, which makes four cents altogether. When will the Government keep its promises and table the business plan they have been promising us for two years?
Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat taken aback by my colleague's impatience. First of all, there has been no confirmation of an increase in postal rates, and second, I may remind the Hon. Member that the previous administration seemed to have as little regard for the impact of reducing the deficit at Canada Post as it did for improving postal services.


ABORTION
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Recently Statistics Canada decided to stop gathering statistics on abortion. As a result, the Department of National Health and Welfare indicated that it may continue to gather the abortion statistics. Would it not be more effective and cost-efficient to let Statistics Canada continue to gather these abortion statistics since it has the necessary mechanisms in place? Will the Minister rescind the previous stop order issued in August?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank the Hon. Member for giving me a chance to inform the House about a situation I think is very important. Two meetings have been held by officials from my Department with the Department of National Health and Welfare, and I am waiting for their report. Mr. Speaker, 1 can give the House the assurance that both as a woman and as a Member of this Government, I am anxious to introduce a program that faithfully reflects the situation existing today in Canada with respect to therapeutic abortions. I shall therefore be watching developments very closely.
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. Would the Minister be prepared to assure Canadians that he will improve postal service before he approves increases in postal rates?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Government intends to deal with the concerns of Canadians by improving service while reducing the Corporation's deficit. We will try to deal with that in the way which we feel is best. We will make it public as soon as we are ready.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister relates to my first question. Will he not assure Canadians that before he approves any postal rate increases or any other increases in costs for Canadians with regard to postal delivery he will improve the service?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the same question as I answered previously for my other colleague. 1 would like to reassure my hon. friend that we have received the corporate plan. It is under examination and, as soon as we are ready, we will make the proper announcement.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On Friday, October 17, The Chronicle Herald of Halifax reported:
As much as half of the fish landed in Nova Scotia is taken illegally in a massive black market fishery that could net fishermen between $40 and $65 million this year in unreported catches-
This report has been confirmed by the Minister of Fisheries in Nova Scotia and also by the industry. What immediate action does the Government plan to take to investigate these most serious allegations?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is away on government business today. I will certainly bring the question to his attention. I know that the matter is being looked at now. He will have full information when he gets back to the House.

October 20, 1986
Oral Questions
REQUEST FOR INCREASED DEPARTMENTAL RESOURCES	REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in light of those allegations will the Minister now admit that the Government is heading in the wrong direction in fisheries management? There have been cuts on the scientific side, the biological side, and in enforcement, protection and management. Will the Government change direction by increasing personnel in those areas in order that proper quotas will be set and adhered to in the future?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what world the hon. gentleman is living in. I can assure you that it is not the real world.


George Roland Henderson: Tweedledee and Tweedledum.


John Carnell Crosbie: If you want to shout me down, I am a gentle soul and you can do it. The Hon. Minister of Fisheries announced within the last two weeks increased resources for scientific and research purposes in eastern Canada-


Brian Vincent Tobin: How about enforcement?


John Carnell Crosbie: -including the fishing district of Newfoundland and, in particular, St. John's.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The NRC is telling the 200 employees who have been given their notices that there will only be 40 to 80 jobs in the expanded space program which the NRC will be operating, and no new jobs in biotechnology. Will the Minister tell the House what plans he has for those people who have been laid off and will not find jobs in the space program? Can the country afford to lose the work of these highly trained and skilled people?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, as I have told the House before, the reallocations will not come into effect until the fiscal year 1987-88. I am very confident that none of these people will be laid off. There have not been any lay-off notices as the Hon. Member wishes to imply. I am totally confident that, due to the techniques which have been put in place by the Government, there will not be any lay-offs, that most of the people will be reassigned. As you know, an early retirement option has been offered and a number of people are considering it very seriously. I am confident that there will be no lay-off notices issued.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in answer to earlier questions the Minister said that he would suspend cuts in programs which have to do with safety because of the importance of safety. Would the Minister consider suspending all the cuts and referring the entire question of funding of the NRC to the Standing Committee in order that it can hear witnesses and discuss the whole thrust of the Government's proposals?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, in line with new national priorities, the Government is reorganizing all of its assets. As the Hon. Member knows, the National Research Council represents roughly 10 per cent of the total government effort of $4.2 billion of research and development and science related activity.
I am confident that the integrity of the programs that he has outlined in his question will be preserved. If the safety and health of Canadians are involved, unless there is another agency of the Government that can perform that work, I have undertaken to review that decision. However, I am not inclined to overrule the Board in the manner that he has suggested.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for multiculturalism I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. It concerns the confidential McCreath report which basically concludes that the Canadian Multiculturalism Council is nothing more than an appendix of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Government has surely read the report. Therefore, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will seek the immediate resignation of the Vice-Chairman of that Council, Mr. McCreath, and order an immediate and full investigation into the affairs of the Council so that the credibility and the integrity of this national advisory board can be quickly restored to enable it to do its work on behalf of the ethnocultural communities from the Pacific to the Atlantic?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism is not in the House, we will inform him of the question, and he will give the Hon. Member a reply as soon as he comes back.
October 20, 1986


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is good at making speeches about ethnocultural Canadians across the country but when it comes time to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member knows that the Minister to whom he has directed a question is not in the House. I think it is appropriate for a short supplementary, and a pointed one.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask him once again if he will come to the defence of Canada's multiculturalism policy by seeking a clear and immediate resignation from the ViceChairman of this Council, and instruct his officials to conduct a full investigation so that the reputation of the Council can be fully restored and protected.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism answered this question last week, and I think if he were in the House now, his answer would be the same.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's incompetent bungling of its responsibilities with respect to the installation of decent pollution control devices on the giant Detroit incinerator, what specific representations has the Department of External Affairs made to the United States Government to do something about this serious threat to the health of the citizens of Windsor?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have made several representations. The Hon. Member asks for a specific indication of those representations. He will understand that 1 will have to inquire to get that kind of specific detail, which I will do and present it to him.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary of State prepared to ask the United States Government for a joint reference to the IJC and, perhaps more usefully, following the recommendations coming out of the Shamrock agreement on air pollution, to ask the
Oral Questions
President to intervene personally to overcome this $17 million barrier to decent pollution safety on a $400 million incinerator, or will the Prime Minister be singing at the next Shamrock meeting: "When Irish eyes are tearing, sure the pollution steals your breath away."?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House consider that and other environmental questions to be very serious.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: So do we.


Charles Joseph Clark: They are not subject to trivializing verse.


Mr. Murphy:: Are you insulting poets?


John Carnell Crosbie: The NDP are no better when they rhyme.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the Minister please give the answer, and would Members on the other side ensure that he can give that answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if it turns out that the best way to get a speedy solution to this question would be to refer it to the IJC, of course we would agree to that. If it turns out that another route would yield a better result, we will do that. I need not remind the House of Commons that this Government, through its representations on acid rain and other environmental questions, has already made more progress in our discussions with the United States than previous Governments did in several years.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Robert Pennock: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Last week the Auditor General claimed that he could not offer a comment on the CBC's financial situation because of the deplorable state of its books and the loss of $57 million. Since this is the first time that an Auditor General has been unable to report on the financial statement of a Crown corporation, will the Minister advise the House what initiatives she has taken or intends to take to investigate this apparent incompetency of the CBC management, above and beyond the audit which the CBC management itself has commissioned?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, concern about the new financial management system of the CBC has been expressed by the Auditor General, by the Chairman of the CRTC, and indeed by others. I share those concerns. As the House will know, a task force of accountants and financial analysts, headed by Marcel Caron of Montreal,

October 20, 1986
Committees of the House
has been appointed to look into the CBC's new financial management system to determine what is wrong with it, whether or not it can be fixed, and what are appropriate solutions. The answers to those questions will help to determine if there is, or if there can be, the necessary public confidence in the financial management of the CBC. That report will be forthcoming in November.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. What criteria did his Government adopt in delaying the phase out of lead in gasoline until the end of 1992 despite the urging of many groups across the country that this would be damaging to the health of Canadians?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member said, the Minister of the Environment has taken a leading role in this issue and has clearly stated the period by which lead in gasoline would be removed. If the Member looks at that record I think that he will find it is well within the criteria that he also used when he was in government.


Mr. Caccia:: If one looks at that record one really finds it very difficult to understand the decision.


ROYAL SOCIETY'S REPORT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Is he aware that the Royal Society points out, on page 111 of its report, that the phasing out of lead from gasoline can be achieved within three years? Why the delay until the end of 1992, which is against the public health interest of the nation?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the final report of the Royal Society of Canada's commission on lead was released on October 15 of this year. The Hon. Member should know that there were a number of recommendations, one of which he has mentioned here. For instance, there were 30 recommendations, a number of which apply to my Department. Among those issues, we are looking at lead in canned foods and how we can relate this to the industry. This goes back to 1975. When I look at that long period of time, we have been moving much faster in two years than the previous Government did since 1975.


DISARMAMENT
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week the Prime Minister said that the Government told President Reagan before the Rejkavik Summit that Canada stood by the Secretary of State for External Affairs' January 23 statement that: "Our stance toward SDI research is rooted in the need to conform strictly with the provisions of the ABM treaty". In his meeting following Rejkavik, did the Secretary of State support the American position on star wars or did he stand by his Government's position that development outside the laboratory violates the ABM treaty?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is positing a distinction that does not exist. As he may know, I will be making a statement to the House tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock. Copies will be made available to his Party by nine o'clock in the morning. As he knows, this is a highly important and complex field. I look forward to there being an opportunity for the kind of informed and calm discussion on this question that has characterized the approach of this Parliament to these questions for most of the last two years.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I wish the Secretary of State had answered my first question.


ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, does the Secretary of State for External Affairs want a superpower compromise that would allow ABM development or does he stand by his January 23 statement that: "To deviate from a policy of full compliance is to threaten the credibility and hence the viability of arms control"?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we believe the ABM Treaty should be strictly complied with. There should be no doubt about that. As the Hon. Member will know, being a close student of these matters, there is some question as to what precisely the ABM Treaty provides. That is a matter to which I will be referring tomorrow and I look forward to the participation of the Hon. Member, or representatives of his Party, on this very important and complex question.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise the House at this time that, pursuant to Section 5 of Standing Order 92, the Members
October 20, 1986

appointed to compose the panel of Chairmen of Legislative Committees, together with the Deputy Speaker and Chairmen of Committees of the Whole, the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole and the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, shall be as follows: Lise Bour-gault, Howard Crosby, J. Robert Howie, Fred King, Arnold Malone, Allan McKinnon, John Parry, Gordon Taylor and Marcel R. Tremblay.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Earlier in Question Period when the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) answered my question, he misled the House in that he compared the Gersberg Inquiry to the Forget Royal Commission. Gersberg was a public servant working in the Department of Employment and Immigration and conducted an internal inquiry at the request of the Minister. The Forget Commission was appointed under the Inquiries Act and it is not and was not normal that it should be financed through the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: The Minister has misled the House in answering my question. He is a public servant.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has really raised a question of debate. I do not think it is a question of privilege. I listened carefully and the Hon. Member was very careful not to say there had been any intentional misleading of the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise that Bill C-2, 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. Speaker:: When the House rose at 1 p.m., the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) had the floor.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock earlier today I was pretty well along in my remarks on Bill C-2, which is an Act to wind down the Crown corporation known as Canagrex. I had indicated we were of the firm opinion that the corporation would not have delivered in the manner in which it was originally intended and that the
Canagrex
Government had taken some very significant steps in the interim to provide the extra support and assistance to our agricultural industry in Canada, primarily the changes with the Export Development Corporation and extending the loan guarantee for one year. In addition, the export credit would be extended to up to three years.
I indicated as well that in a short period of time we expected that some $200 million worth of trade would have taken advantage of these additional credit support programs and that we were actively seeking additional activity in trade missions, providing help and financial support, not only for trade missions which were formed within Canada to travel into the international market-place, but also we were actively encouraging trade missions from other countries to come to Canada to look at the commercial activities which could be developed.
I also indicated that Agriculture Canada, in close cooperation with the Department of External Affairs, had developed an export market information system. We would have clear identification within the two departments for the private sector to seek help and advice from both departments.
To be successful in expanding our trade horizons, I believe we must consult with industry, not just on trade matters but as a part of our over-all planning process. That is why my department is now involved with the industry in charting a course for the future of the major agricultural commodities which Canada produces. Six commodity groups have been established at Agriculture Canada, one for each of the major commodity areas, grains and oil seeds, red meat, poultry, dairy, horticultural and special crops. Teams involving both Government and industry are working together to create development plans for each commodity group. These plans will give Agriculture Canada and the industry a shared vision of where we are going and what we have to do to get there. By planning together, we are ensuring that resources in my department for research, market development, trade policy, or whatever, are in line with the plans of each commodity group. In this way, our resources will be targeted more effectively and more efficiently.
Time and time again the Government of Canada has demonstrated its high priority commitment to trade. As was said in the Speech from the Throne, our future is trade. The Government has faith that, given the proper environment, Canadian industry can compete abroad and can tap new trade opportunities. That is why we have targeted the Pacific Rim as a key region of the world for trade development.
This past April, my department, together with the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of External Affairs, co-sponsored the China Challenge Meeting here in Ottawa. The seminar brought together federal and provincial government people with representatives of agriculture and the food industry to share information about trade development in that very large country with its very large potential market. My department, together with other government departments, and the private sector, has taken

October 20, 1986
Canagrex
numerous steps to build on Canada's potential as an agricultural trader. We have demonstrated in tangible terms that the key to agricultural trade development is not necessarily through the creation of new Crown corporations or new agencies. Rather, it is through the creation of a positive environment for exporters, through a stronger commitment to interdepartmental co-operation and through closer working relations with the private sector.
In retrospect, it is clear that the initiative announced two years ago to dissolve Canagrex was indeed a sound and responsible initiative, one which was in the best interests of Canadian agriculture. I would, therefore, urge all Members of the House to support the Bill which is presently before us.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am not very happy to see this Bill before the House again today. However, I am glad to respond to the comments made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). Bill C-2 is essentially a plan to disband the Canagrex organization, to drive a few more nails into the organization so as to complete the work the Government started on black Thursday, November 8, 1984 when it cut all the funding to Canagrex. The Minister went into great detail with respect to what a great job he is doing, especially in terms of cuts.
When the Estimates regarding Canagrex were before the committee he told us he would outline in great detail how much funding there would be and how the Department would compensate for the loss of Canagrex. If one looks at the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture one is hard-pressed to find any mention about additional funding for agricultural commodity exports. In fact, the Government proposes to cut some $50 million per year, as well as deindex department funding. I will never understand how agriculture, which is facing the most difficult times since the 1930s, can survive and regain its equilibrium with a Government that is constantly cutting to the bone the funds and resources of the Department of Agriculture. For instance, this year some $23 million will be cut from the research budget. In 1984 the Farm Credit Corporation had something in the order of $825 million in its budget for agriculture loans. This year that figure will be reduced to around $200 million.
We have a Government which is hell-bent on assisting something in the order of 25 per cent of farmers get out of farming, and it brags about it. It is incomprehensible for me to understand how the Minister can face farm organizations and act as if he is really doing something for farming when in fact his motto is cut, cut, cut. Our agriculture economy faces incredible difficulties in terms of the grain sector, the farm debt crisis and the cost-price squeeze. It seems to me that the Government has its priorities mixed up when it puts at the top of its list in a new session of Parliament the destruction of Canagrex, when some two years ago the money was already removed from it.
Canagrex was designed to provide and assist the export by producers of relatively small quantities of agricultural commodities into the international market. Nowhere in the Government's manifesto of 1984 is there a comment about destroying Canagrex. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) talked about making Canada a superpower in terms of agriculture exports. Yet the Bill before us would destroy Canagrex. It is like many other promises made by the Government at the time of the 1984 general election.
For instance, at that time members of the Government said they would allow the Farm Credit Corporation to offer agribonds so that farmers could have access to reasonably priced funds. That promise was never kept. They also promised to revise Section 31 of the Income Tax Act to reflect the principles of equity. That promise was never kept. They promised to expand agriculture research and development by providing greater assistance to agriculture colleges to amend tax policy to encourage private sector investment. Those promises were never kept.
It was promised that a board of authority would be established to control tobacco production and prices. That promise was never kept. Members of the Government promised to expand the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act into a national farm and forest rehabilitation Act. That promise was never kept. They promised to allocate the necessary funding to assist producers in refinancing their loans at prevailing rates. That promise was never kept. They promised to impose an effective fast-track tariff policy so that responsive action could be taken to protect producers by imposing import restrictions when necessary. That promise was never kept. One need only ask the Canadian Cattlemen's Association in respect to that promise. Increased exports and stimulated production to meet those export demands were also promised. The Government's answer to that seems to be to destroy Canagrex, an agency designed to assist those producers of agriculture commodities which form a large magnitude of exports sales.
If Canagrex were operating today, and if the money had not been cut off two years ago by the Tory Government, the domestic and export sales of agricultural commodities would be promoted. Market analysis would be under-way in foreign countries. In fact, I think that in the five months that the entity was in operation it conducted analyses in some 17 countries. The markets were looked at to see how our agriculture commodities would have to be adapted, packaged, processed or delivered in order to make those sales.


Mr. Malone:: How many silos did it build?


Maurice Brydon Foster: I would be glad to get to that, if the Hon. Member would listen.
If Canagrex were in operation today it would be working with producers in terms of group shipments for smaller volumes of commodities which are not practical to ship individually but where several sales from across the country could be co-ordinated and assisted. If Canagrex were in operation the Government would be working in joint ventures
October 20, 1986

with producer groups. The organization had the authority and power to provide insurance arrangements in working with 150 different countries. Obviously, such arrangements vary from country to country, and the Minister talks about the Department of Agriculture doing this. He does not know the capacity in the Department for making those types of insurance arrangements. Canagrex would have been able to provide assistance for various commodities in terms of storage arrangements, market development and promotion in other countries.
Canagrex had worked with many producer groups. Often the work was parallel type work, but it was not always coordinated. For instance, we heard tell of various provincial pork marketing boards being in place in various countries at the same time. Canagrex would have been able to assist in the co-ordination of that type of activity. It would certainly have been of great assistance to agriculture commodities in smaller volumes.
Although we are a free enterprise society and believe it is the best and most successful way to make an economy operate, much of the world is controlled by communist governments or other non-democratic forms of government which want to deal state-to-state. Canagrex would have given us an opportunity to have a Crown corporation act on behalf of the state in dealing state-to-state. This certainly takes place now in terms of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is also in place in terms of the Canadian Dairy Commission. However, there are dozens and dozens of other commodities for which there are not big national and international agencies to co-ordinate sales. That is what Canagrex would have been able to do. There is an endless list of items in terms of grain, corn and other commodities in that range, as well as in poultry, livestock, red meat, some dairy items and horticultural products in which there would have been an opportunity for Canagrex to make a tremendous contribution to agricultural exports.
We know that every country in the world is becoming more and more aggressive in marketing, whether it be by providing subsidization, loan guarantees, insurance or help in market penetration techniques. Clearly Canagrex was the instrument chosen by the Parliament of Canada to do that kind of export development.
In the United States, the GSM 102 legislation provides assistance for export sales. We are very conscious of the fact that the United States is providing something like one bushel in every three or four to promote export sales. In that regard, we do have the Canadian Wheat Board which does not have that kind of subsidizing capacity, at least not at this stage, but for many other commodities which do not benefit from big national marketing agencies like the Wheat Board or the Canadian Dairy Commission, Canagrex was the agency that could have been used.
Practically every other country has an agency like Canagrex. France has the SOPEX export development agency and
Canagrex
Germany has the CMA agency, which is a joint venture between the Government of the Federal German Republic and the wholesale producers and processors. Australia has its Economic Development Council and Britain has the British Export Council. Israel has the Israeli Export Institute. It goes on and on, yet this Government chose to destroy Canagrex by cutting off its funds almost two years ago.
In the few short months the agency did operate, much of its time was spent meeting the requirements of the Treasury Board for its terms of reference. In spite of that, it assisted in the sale of some $80 million worth of produce and was negotiating for another $100 million worth of sales. It had completed some 15 studies on the market potential of various countries around the world, it had handled some 300 requests from within and without the country, it had helped some groups in completing lines of credit and it had promoted some pork sales in the Pacific Rim. It had promoted canola sales in eastern Europe and Latin America and had promoted sales of white beans in Cuba and several Latin American countries. It had promoted and assisted in sales of bull semen in China and eastern European countries. It had assisted in promoting sales in Central America and was dealing with the honey producers of Canada for sales in Europe. It had completed some preliminary discussions with regard to oats and barley for feed grains in the Eastern Bloc country of Bulgaria and had promoted the sale of soya bean meal to countries like Cuba, Kenya, Tonga and the Ivory Coast.
Canagrex was a Crown corporation which was really gaining momentum when the Government decided to destroy it. When the President of the Crown corporation appeared before the Agriculture Committee, he told us that the Minister of Agriculture was very sorry that the Government had unilaterally taken this decision. I believe that most farm organizations across Canada were very disappointed as well.
It seems like the Government is bound and determined to put the screws on the small producers. It does not want to see the producers of relatively smaller volume farm commodities having the same advantages as those who use the services of massive national agencies like the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission, agencies which promote the international sales of products. It is clear that the Government is working as the agent of big business. It has knuckled under to the pressure of the big international grain and commodity traders and has decided to destroy this small Crown corporation which would have been so beneficial to so many countries.
Instead of dealing with the major issues that face agriculture today, issues like whether or not the Government will provide a deficiency payment for western grain and eastern grain and corn producers, we are dealing with a government Bill designed to destroy a Crown corporation that helped and encouraged Canadian farmers. We hope that the Prime Minister's allusions to negotiating something with the Premier of Saskatchewan will not be as phoney as the announcement he made last April 30. At that time, the Prime Minister

October 20, 1986
Canagrex
announced that he would give major help to Canadian producers amounting to some $300 million or $400 million.
When examining the details of that major announcement the Prime Minister made before he flew over the heads of western agriculture producers and landed in Vancouver, we find that essentially he was stopping the theft and larceny that had taken place for almost eight or nine months by removing the excise tax of two cents per litre that was imposed last September, just in time to catch western grain producers when they were taking off their crops. He kept the excise tax on until all the fuel tanks were full in April and May and then removed it in the spring. He was able to pick up almost an entire year's worth of the two-cents per litre excise tax, amounting to some $50 million or $60 million. When he announced that he would take off this excise tax, thus saving Canadian farmers some $150 million, he should have instead apologized for ever imposing it in the fall of 1985, a time when Canadian agriculture was facing one of its most difficult periods. As well, he should have made the removal of the tax retroactive to last September. There was certainly no justification for the imposition of that excise tax at that time.
The second part of the Prime Minister's announcement was that he was going to freeze the freight rates. He made this announcement in his grand style, making headlines, but the substance of it really had no bearing in reality. Usually the national press write this stuff, whether it is true or not. Within 24 hours, the announcement that the Prime Minister would freeze the freight rates was exploded when it became clear that all he had done was ask the Department of Transport and the transport agencies to recalculate the volume of grain that was to be shipped. They found out that it would be reduced from some 31 million tonnes to around 28.5 million tonnes, so in fact there would not be any justification for a freight rate increase in any event.
The third part of the Prime Minister's announcement was that he would increase the range of the domestic price of wheat. This was to benefit farmers by some $250 million to $300 million. He announced several times that the range would be increased. In fact there was another such announcement in July. It is one thing to increase the range but it is another thing to increase the actual domestic price of wheat. The announcement of several hundred millions of dollars was supposedly to help farmers but it has borne very little fruit for Canadian farmers who face the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.
We are awaiting the deficiency payment about which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture have been talking. Is it another smoke and mirrors exercise, or will it in fact provide some additional cash benefit? Farmers do not need smoke and mirrors; they need cash.
Likewise there was the announcement in the February Budget wherein the Government was to provide some $730 million at 6 per cent to farmers under something called the
commodity based mortgage. When the officials of the Farm Credit Corporation appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture, we found that the $730 million at 6 per cent was not quite as good as it sounded and that in fact the $730 million was over a two-year period. Therefore the amount of assistance is about half the $730 million each year. Also we found that the 6 per cent only applied to certain producers. Others will pay as high as 9 per cent. As the value of their commodity rises, they will pay 2 per cent more than any regular FCC mortgage over the 10-year life of any commodity based mortgage. The announcement makes great headlines, but it helps only a couple of thousand farmers per year for two years. It helps only those farmers who already have FCC loans. In fact there is no new principal or capital money for farmers. As the value of a commodity rises, the individual farm producer may well pay more than what he would pay under a regular FCC mortgage.
I hope the Minister will get around to announcing whatever he will do on a deficiency payment. He has never used the term "deficiency payment", so that is why we are suspicious. It might be something other than a deficiency payment, but we hope that it will be real money, not a smoke and mirrors slide show such as we saw on two or three items.
One of the greatest concerns of Canadian producers is that the Government, in its desire to establish a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States, will bargain away our marketing and stabilization systems in return for advantages which some industry other than Canadian agriculture will receive. Our national marketing programs are imperfect instruments for providing farmers with adequate incomes. In my opinion they are certainly better than the mechanisms which are being used in the United States or in the EEC. In fact, I understand EEC is already looking at the supply and management regimes for our dairy industry.
Another concern faced by agricultural producers is just exactly what the Government plans to do in the free trade negotiations. It seems prepared to continue regardless of how many countervail duties, surcharges, or other instruments are put into place. There is great concern in the agricultural community about the Government's commitment to agriculture. At a time when agriculture is facing the most difficult time in our history, we have received very minute assistance programs in the farm debt crisis.
We saw the Government dither for almost a year in the establishment of Farm Debt Review Boards. In the case of Ontario, as far as we can determine, over 100 people have applied for farm debt review but not a single case has been heard by a farm debt review board panel, although the Opposition co-operated last June to see the legislation passed in two sittings of the House, including consideration in Committee of the Whole. There is great concern in many parts of the country-and certainly it is the case in Ontario-with regard to the operations of Farm Debt Review Boards. Will the Government make them operational? So far it has only appointed three of the ten board members. When will they
October 20, 1986

actually start to assist farmers facing serious financial difficulties?
We are disappointed that the Government brought back this Bill. We believe that this Crown corporation has a valuable place in our agricultural export promotional scheme. We do not believe that the massive committee structures about which the Minister has talked are nearly as flexible, given the variety of assistance required to meet the complex situations involved in agricultural commodity exports in a world which is increasingly competitive. There is much pressure from countries around the world with flexible, effective organizations and instruments for handling agricultural exports.
We oppose the Bill. We hope the Government will make up its mind not to pass it and to leave the Canagrex organization and the legislation in place to be used at an appropriate time. It has a useful role to play in Canadian agriculture and in Canadian agricultural exports.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, as a lead-in to agri-food week this is a rather pathetic effort on the part of the Government. However, I will attempt to address the Bill before us.
I am somewhat at a loss. Having listened to some Members who are now on the government side of the House, and knowing what they thought about the Canagrex legislation, I point out that we are not dealing with a piece of legislative nicety today; we are not cleaning up the books on the racks, so to speak. More of something in the nature of an Irish wake is what the government members have in mind. I do not really know how to behave at a wake having come from a central and northern European background, Madam Speaker. I have not had any experience on how to conduct myself at wakes or even what is expected at a wake. Yet I perceive, on listening to statements made by government Members in and out of the House, that what they see in their mind's eye with this piece of legislation is Canagrex draped in some great box in the middle of the Chamber. I think some of them even see Canagrex as a rather large Irish pixie or elf with a scowl on his face and his hands crossed over his chest covered by a great green stetson hat. They are hoping to bury this particular apparition and set it out Lord knows where.
Because we do not know where the Government is intending to take us or what it is proposing to do, it seems ironic that for agri-food week one of the first and perhaps the only thing that will be done, initiated by the Government, is to put to rest a corpse that became a corpse on November 8, 1984 when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stood in this House and announced unbeknownst to the Canagrex board, staff or the farming community that it would no longer be alive after that date.


Arnold John Malone: Hear, hear!
Canagrex


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Member says hear, hear. That is part of the mentality with which the House, the country and the farming community have had to contend on this issue. Despite the presentation of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) today, I think there were a number of things, with the activity the Government took with regard to Canagrex, that showed all too clearly from where this Government was coming. After telling the country for months that it was a caring Government, that it was going to be a consultative and a responsible Government, this little agency, fledgling that it was, a little furry monster maybe a few months old, was unceremoniously clubbed to death on November 8. There was no meeting of the Minister with the board, no announcement to the directors or to the staff. There was no discussion as to what Canagrex had done. The Minister and his ministry have not even done an assessment of the organization. It was simply decided apparently in the Ministry of Finance that Canagrex would no longer live, and so it died. Today we are being asked to bury the remains and forget that farmers need, in spite of the death of Canagrex, many of the facilities and services this agency was designed to provide.
The Minister in his speech pointed out that he has continued to use External Affairs to make inquiries about the potential for agricultural trade. He has continued to use the Export Development Corporation which is able to provide grants and contributions for agricultural exports, something very difficult to get before. We assume that this is an improvement. He is saying that within his own Department he now has an export information centre for those groups, individuals and agencies that are interested in attempting to export some of their product. He is telling us that he hopes that his Department of Agriculture will co-ordinate and co-operate in the development of trade in agricultural products.
Without going over the same ground, I think we did hear very much the same speech from a previous Minister of Agriculture, whose ghost I think we are trying to bury today, when he talked about Canagrex. There was a very real problem in getting the various Departments and branches of Government together when a farmer or group of farmers wanted to get together a product for export to another country. They had to work through three different Departments of Government. These groups, usually fledgling themselves, had to find a market for a product fairly new to them, but they did not have the kind of financing and background by way of experience to carry it off quickly. Canagrex was supposed to be a gathering point, a listening post and a point where producers, through their co-operatives, their growers' associations, as individuals or processors, could say; "Here, we are expecting to have X number of tonnes of product for surplus to be sold out of the country in the next year or two, where are we likely to sell it? Where can we get the kind of technical information needed for shipping, financing, insurance and export guarantees that we will need in order to make these operations viable so we can expand the growing of peas and blueberries and the production of maple syrup and of honey? This whole host of products that in the scheme of things, in the over-all accounts

October 20, 1986
Canagrex
of Canada, do not amount to much in billions and billions of dollars but they are important to a great many of the small farmers in Canada, They are produced in relatively small amounts in many provinces. As a result of that, producers do not have an opportunity to put all their production together under one roof through one warehouse to know how much they have to export.
The various provinces, being in control as they are of production and marketing by our Constitution, have agencies, many of them with exactly the same powers that Canagrex has except that they can only operate within the small confines of the area of a particular province. They can take the product outside, but if these agencies are only producing a small amount of products not produced in great volumes, such as the ones I have mentioned, to be a legitimate marketing effort they would have to combine with other provinces. There is no methodology for them to do this, and that was the reason for Canagrex.
However, it was very quickly decided, before Canagrex could become useful and competent, that that was not the vision of the future this Government saw. These dreams of becoming exporters of commodities from Canada that are not now well known to importers around the world were, in the opinion of this Government, doomed to failure and have been left as dreams in the minds of small farmers scattered here and there across the country who still attempt to grow peas, blueberries, alfalfa seeds, grass seeds and still attempt to produce maple sugar, syrup and honey. They have no way of combining their production under one agency that can offer them to the best advantage. We have repeated here very early in the mandate of this Government the kind of smashing of dreams that went on in the high-tech industry under the previous Conservative Government when it decided to do away with the Avro Arrow. That plane was very close to being finished, ready to be put into production, but the Government smashed it before it could show a return.
I am not sure that the Members who applauded the killing of Canagrex have much understanding of how long it takes to set up an export agency and get it going. Any exporter could have told them quite clearly that you cannot in a few months put together a crew, record large sales figures and a final balance in the black. That is just not the real world. It may be the mythology which members of the Government are trying to pass around, but it does not wash in the real world.
We had a series of myths being sold by government Members who were offering a series of arguments as to why this kind of facility should not exist in Canada at the national level. They raised the bogey of nationalization. They tried to leave the impression that Canagrex was going to be able to seize private property and take away the right of farmers and processors to own property. They misread all sorts of clauses in the Bill and used scare tactics right across the land. I do not think very many rational farmers were convinced by that, but
it did create a momentum of its own and brought all sorts of strange philosophers out of the woodwork writing letters and calling phone-in radio shows and pointing to all sorts of things they feared from Canagrex. They had no reason to fear those things because they were not in the legislation. Yet it took on a life of its own, fear built upon fear, and pretty soon it came to the end on November 8, 1984, when the Minister of Finance decided that Canagrex would breathe no more. Agricultural producers, however, are still left with a lot of the problems they had before the attempt at putting Canagrex in place. They will continue to have them.
I draw to the attention of the House a recent report on farmers' incomes produced by the Agricultural Council of Ontario chaired by Del O'Brien. What they found is not a surprise to those of us who are close to agriculture, but it may have been a surprise to some of the economists and others who occasionally look at agriculture. They found that even though the value of agricultural products sold from some of these small farms was not great, when you looked at farms of any size and looked at farm families on an individual basis, you found that average income from very small farms right up to the extremely large farms does not vary that much. On those very small farms with sales of agricultural products between $2,500 and $20,000, which is a fairly small farm by commercial standards, and there are over 26,000 families on those kinds of farms in Ontario, the average family income was $25,131. When you look at the very largest farm in Ontario, those with sales of $150,000 and over, of which there are not quite 5,000, you find that the average family income was $27,472. There is very little difference.
One of my colleagues has just handed me a note to let me know, just for the benefit of government Members, that Del O'Brien was a Tory candidate in the elections of 1968 and 1974.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: He has learned his lesson finally.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Two-time loser.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: What they discovered in Ontario-and I am sure we would find the same thing holding true in the rest of Canada-is that farm families must have a certain income and they earn that income most of the time by going off the farm to other jobs. They noted that even those very large farms that generate revenue in excess of $150,000 often have one or more family members working off the farms as well.
The reason I bring this up is to point out that many of these smaller farms are operated by people who want to become fulltime farmers but, because of the pressure of economic forces, are forced to earn a considerable amount of their income off the farm. Yet they tend to be the kind of people who experiment, who produce experimental crops, who get into new areas of production which were not thought of 10 or 15 years ago, areas of production which do have an opportunity for expansion and which could be exploited in international trade terms. However, they are very small operators, as you will see,
October 20, 1986

Madam Speaker, from those kinds of incomes. They do not have a lot of money to go out and develop a market for a new product and catch the attention of the Chinese, the Taiwanese, the Filipinos, the Germans or the Austrians. They have to rely on an agency like Canagrex was seen to be, to provide some of this preliminary work. It could provide services in the language of the country they were targeting, do the initial spade work, use contacts throughout government agencies, and begin the process of finding a market for this new product.
These farmers are now back on their own little plot of ground dreaming their individual dreams, knowing that they can produce peas or honey or alfalfa seeds, those kinds of small products, efficiently and could increase their production four, five, six or maybe even 10 times, but there is no place for them to market the product. There is no agency in the private sector interested in these products unless they can make a profit. They are not willing to spend a year or two or three in market development so they can, in the long term, show a profit and expand the agricultural industry in this country. The private sector can only afford to work on very short-term solutions with products which they may trade in occasionally when there is a real shortage in the part of the world of which they have knowledge. They may run out then and offer some contracts for some peas, for instance, which is an occasionally popular crop in my particular corner of the country. Then, within two or three years, they are no longer interested in purchasing peas, and farmers who have built up their production capacity sit with the crop in their graneries wondering what to do with it.
Canagrex had a function to serve. Unfortunately it did not fit in with the philosophy of the current Government and so had to die the same death as the Avro Arrow had to suffer. Canagrex will be relegated to memory. Perhaps some people will maintain the memory and continue to think of ways of combining the products from various provinces to permit their export in sufficient volumes to sustain an exportable position. However, in the meantime the Government is determined to do away with the corpse of the creature it created two years ago.
At this wake we can only say that it showed great promise, its life was very short, and it had no opportunity to show what could be done or to prove that it was filling a niche which needed to be filled in Canadian agriculture. Its successors have yet to fill the holes which were left. There is very little opportunity for an agency to accumulate products from across provincial boundaries for export. The Ag Products Board can buy products, but usually it only operates when extreme surpluses of product hit the market. The Ag Products Board generally only takes those products off the market so that the price does not collapse even further. It is not set up to be exporters as such, but rather as part of the stabilization and pricing system of our agricultural industry, and it has nothing to do with agricultural exports.
Canagrex
The Minister says that his Department will spend more time assisting with the promotion of the export of Canadian agricultural and food products. We have not seen very many concrete results from this activity. The Minister did not give any examples today even though his Department has apparently been instructed to be involved in this for the past two years. We have not seen any of the agencies which the Minister named today entering into contracts with Canadian companies, co-operatives, marketing boards, associations or other Canadian enterprises or individuals who are carrying on business in Canada to act as their marketing representative in marketing agricultural products and food products or to provide managerial, technological, marketing or other counselling and consulting services to them, except for some of those products of which we are quite large producers at this time.
We do not have much direction with regard to the very small specialty crops and products which agriculture in this country is capable of producing. We tend to ignore such problems at the moment. There is no existing agency available to Canadian agricultural exporters which will do that which Canagrex was mandated to do, that is, to enter into joint ventures, at the request of Governments, with Canadian companies, co-operatives, marketing boards, etcetra, to carry on business inside as well as outside of Canada.
There has only been one attempt in this Parliament to get the various provincial marketing boards together. One of the first Bills which the Government introduced was to permit tobacco to be marketed under the Farm Products Marketing Council. The Government still insists that that legislation not be made available to producers under provincial marketing boards which want to expand their mandate across provincial borders. The Government has taken the position that only those products which the Government prefers to name may have that privilege. Producers of all products in the country have not been given the same rights of access to marketing across provincial boundaries or to set up a national marketing agency. That has been very strictly controlled by the Government which says that only those products which have been named, namely eggs, chicken, turkey, and now tobacco, can have such access to markets.
The Government has left red meat producers, fruit and vegetable producers, honey producers and seed producers, which trade on a much smaller basis, to fend for themselves. They are free to attempt to arrange a market with Japan, for example, but they cannot afford that kind of marketing with the small volumes generated within a province. For such marketing thrusts to be useful a multiprovince effort is required. That ability has been taken away by the Government through its restrictive approach to the National Products Marketing Act and through its attitude toward Canagrex, which was a much more flexible agency through which to handle such requirements.
I regret that the Government insists on bringing this back to the House. The agency has been closed down. The members of

October 20, 1986
Canagrex
the board are not paid. They are in limbo. It does not cost anything to leave the paper sitting on the shelf. I do not think we are using the time of the House wisely or well by spending the onset of agri-food week by killing what could have been a very useful organization, just as the Avro Arrow could have been as very useful bit of technology for Canada. We have chosen to close our eyes to the future. We have once again, unfortunately, decided to cut ourselves off from potential markets in other parts of the world and to look instead within our own provincial borders where there is no solution to be found.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)- Pensions-Homemakers' pension inquiry; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Science and technology-(a) National Research Council's budget (b) Number of Council's employees; the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi)-Multiculturalism-(a)	Funding of Toronto
organizations (b) Government policy.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise that Bill C-2, 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. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, by moving second reading of Bill C-2 on the dissolution of Canagrex, the Government fully acknowledges the efforts made by Government departments and agencies, both provincial and federal, and by the private sector to promote the exportation of Canadian products. In fact these departments and agencies have taken over the goals set for Canagrex and are well on their way to concluding several export projects.
Since we are implementing the Budget cut-backs made imperative by the financial mess left by our predecessors, it is appropriate to point out that the Government is ever more intent on reducing the duplication of services while at the same time offering quality service to producers interested in agricultural exports. It can achieve this-and it is the only way
given the current situation-by altering and strengthening existing Government structures and programs.
Mrs. Speaker, whether we are talking about the Agricultural Products Board, the Department of External Affairs, the Export Development Corporation or Agriculture Canada itself, each agency and department specializes in one particular aspect of agricultural trade.
Trade is a complex area that requires close co-operation between the agencies and departments concerned and, of course, the private sector. In preparing trade transactions, it is very important to have information sessions with the private sector, followed by seminars in countries seen as potential markets.
This month, for instance, a delegation from Agriculture Canada, accompanied by experts from the private sector and the provincial governments, will go to the People's Republic of China. It will also travel to Spain and Portugal, to offer seminars on Canadian dairy cattle. These seminars are aimed at giving prospective buyers the benefit of the knowledge and, especially, the experience of our Canadian producers. The ultimate goal is to conquer new markets.
For instance, for more than two years Canadian pork has been actively promoted in Japan. Nearly 1,000 stores are selling our pork products today. Furthermore, a dozen Japanese trade missions have been invited to Canada since last fall to take a closer look at our pork production. We hope they will only examine the quality of our products and not succeed in imitating our truly exceptional production methods.
I represent a riding which, though not exclusively agricultural, does have a flourishing pork producing sector. For instance we know that we now have surplus production in Quebec precisely because of the quality and the sustained efforts made by our producers to market first rate products and boost productivity in the farming community.
Still on the international scene, in Algeria, we plan to promote the sale of seed potatoes, and eventually we will look for new markets. I repeat that even though I represent a North Shore riding where potatoes are not produced in significant quantities I am pleased to point out that we have one of Canada's leading potato research centres, certainly the best in the province. Climate considerations are of course the reason why colder regions such as mine are selected to avoid seed corruption, away from the pollution of major urban centres and possible contamination, and to carry out research on and produce top quality potatoes. For over ten years now this research has turned eastern Canada into a prime quality potato producer, where new products and better quality seed have been discovered. This is happening in Pointe-aux-Outardes, a small municipality near Baie-Comeau. People are really surprised when they hear that we have such a research center on the North Shore, but it is because of our climate, and we have a good personnel and outstanding researchers. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the men
October 20, 1986

and women who work at this center which is now well-known throughout the province and even the country.
Canada also has a great export potential. We have more and more production surpluses and we are offering competitive and quality products. Even though I could have chosen those of representatives of Quebec agriculture, I would like to quote the words of the Chairman of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Pelissero, who asked this shocking question in the October 14 issue of Farm & Country;
"Should Canada quit farming"?

The article referred to the somewhat pointless comments of some so-called experts who have had enough of agriculture, who consider that too much money is being spent on agriculture and who believe that all Canadian farmers are crybabies. Mr. Pelissero rightly said the following:

Let's make one thing clear. Our industry's problems are many. Their roots, however, can be traced not to the farmer, but to a world market and to an industry in a state of flux.
Should Canada quit farming?
Ask the suppliers and dealers who sell $14 billion worth of equipment, feed, seed, lumber and chemicals to Canada's farmers.
Ask Canadian consumers who spend the second lowest amount of money-as a share of personal disposable income-on food in the industrialized world, thanks to Canadian farmers' super-high productivity.
Ask the one Canadian in five whose job depends on the agri-food system, Canada's largest industry. Its foundation, of course, is the farmer.

This statement by the Chairman of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, who was obviously thinking about his own field of interest and the good of agriculture, illustrates the importance of this industry for Canada. At the end, he asked this question:

To this farmer, asking the question "Should Canada quit farming"? is asking the question "Should Canada quit"?
For him the answer is clear. No.
[ Translation]
The situation is somewhat the same for this Government which seeks in difficult fiscal conditions, which leads me to talk about those government agencies that were created, unfortunately, with all the best intentions in the world, and as you know, the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions. Whenever for reasons that are generous, and marvelous- motherhood and apple pie-government corporations suddenly crop up, those so-called Crown corporations which very soon part from government to go their own way and enter with their bureaucracy into what I would call a life of positive homeostasis, an on-going tendency to self-fattening, and very soon strike off from their vocabulary the word productivity, or doing more with less, all things which they lack. And their by-products are
Canagre x
supplementary estimates, special budgets, special projects, etc. All that is fine when the Government in power does not care a damn for the tax dollars of Canadian men and women. But when we are faced with a situation like ours, which is to manage budgetary decline, well, this creates a number of problems. And those government agencies that were set up with the best intentions in the world end up costing fortunes without fulfilling the purposes for which they were created. Also it is extremely difficult for the Government to back-track.
What we are doing is winding down Canagrex, which, as suggested by the previous speaker, was established with the best intentions in the world. Everyone is for motherhood, expansion, and of course for setting up all kinds of agencies to support agriculture.
But what we are asking is this: At what price? Do the producers, the farmers, the guy and his wife down there working the fields, benefit directly from this? That is exactly what we are doing when we are tapping the agencies that we have, the Department of External Affairs, the provincial Governments with their own agencies, the private industry which is involved in promotion.
As we were saying a while ago, the agri-food industry is one of the most important industries in Canada. The private sector itself is playing an increasingly important role and in order to foster its own expansion, it must also be involved in promotion, and that is what this Government is asking its agencies to do, achieving more with fewer resources, to question their own performance, to give agriculture a high priority in their programs and attitudes, and to keep in mind the significance of this industry when they are promoting Canada abroad.
So, what we must do with these organizations is to assume, assure and favour the promotion and development of new markets; to seek financial supports of every kind for potential exporters, and encourage the exchange of advice in a climate of co-operation, working hand in hand with the agri-food industry. Clearly, what has been shown, I think, and I heard my hon. friend refer to Canagrex's wake... You know, I do not think anybody here will cry over Canagrex's demise. Absolutely nobody. As far as I know, no producer, either in my own riding or elsewhere, has shed even crocodile tears over it. The producer is more interested in finding new markets for his products, new ways to sell our surpluses; he wants existing Government marketing agencies to land major sales contracts and every interested party to play a more effective role in this country.
With respect to most Crown corporations, the view of the Conservative Government is that the concept is not necessarily bad in itself, but they must indeed be a necessary evil if they have to be established.
Our main objective as a Government is to make sure that this country and its farming community will have as many

October 20, 1986
Canagrex
opportunities as possible to market quality products which can really compete on the international scene, and that Canada will grow to become one of the world's best exporters of products. The way things are now we feel that the mandate of Canagrex has been assumed by other agencies and departments, that the Canadian farming community is adequately served by the existing structure, and that time has come to lay to rest a corporation which like so many others-and I hope this Government will have an opportunity to take action- which like so many others, as I was saying, probably no longer has its raison d'etre.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, first let me say how glad I am to see you in your capacity as Acting Speaker in the Chair. We welcome you and wish you the best.
I find this debate very interesting because there is a strange mythology being created by some members of the Government who believe there is no role for the Government, or for the state, in promoting exports. I listened very carefully to the remarks of the previous speaker, my colleague from the government side, who tried to develop a reasoning for abandoning Canagrex. 1 must say that his reasoning in trying to convince us that this was really a good idea was pretty frail, to say the least. The more you consider it, the more you must conclude, with regret, that this decision is not really in the best interests of our agricultural communities and not the best thing for our economy, particularly in certain regions outside of Quebec and Ontario, whose well-being depends on our capacity to export. We do not ask the private sector to move citizens by VIA Rail. We do it by way of a Crown agency which is publicly owned. We do not ask the private sector to move citizens within our cities. We all rely on our respective transit systems whether they are in Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa.


Arnold John Malone: Taxis.


Charles L. Caccia: The Hon. Member draws my attention to taxis which do in fact exist to provide movement for a small number of citizens. That is the point I would like to make. For the real promotion of agricultural commodities in a highly competitive market we need to bring to bear the total knowledge of the Government through its listening posts abroad, and a grouping of skilled people into an agency, to achieve the objective of increasing our exports as we compete with other nations.
The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) made an excellent speech just about a year ago in which he drew to the attention of the House the fact that there are countries which have already organized themselves along these lines, namely, the Federal Republic of Germany, Israel, Mexico and Greece. There are probably other nations as well. France, I believe, has a very sophisticated institution called SOPEXA. The entire European community is operating on the same principle. First there is the realization that we have a very competitive
international market and, second, there is the necessity of developing the instruments which are necessary to compete abroad. Canagrex was a terrific idea.
The Minister of Agriculture, the third preceding the present Minister, if I remember correctly, gave a fantastic speech on the subject at Harbour Castle in December, 1982. Imagine, Madam Speaker, he gave a speech on Canagrex in the heart of Toronto! He did not even go out to the rural ridings. He went to the heart of an urban centre to make his case. It was a very good speech. In a nutshell, the points he made were the following: Canagrex would provide market identification and intelligence, and promotion and information services. No one can object to that. It would provide loans and guarantees, which is not such a bad idea. I am sure that many Progressive Conservative back-benchers would not mind having such a measure available.


Mr. Hopkins:: Particularly interest-free.


Charles L. Caccia: The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) suggests that is so, particularly if they were interest-free.
Canagrex would enter into joint ventures with private companies, marketing boards and co-operatives upon request. Canagrex powers would include the acting as agent of the Crown in negotiating state-to-state contracts, which is a very interesting feature. Canagrex would also include in its powers the providing of grants and contributions to help accelerate product development, and the promotion or provision of infrastructures. That is not a bad thought at all. Finally, he indicated that nowhere is Canagrex given monopoly power over any commodity, either in exporting or importing.
In true Eugene Whelan fashion that was not his last point. He had some furthermores. He said that the majority of the 11-member board of directors would be selected from the private sector. He said that there would be an all-industry policy advisory committee formed to help guide and monitor Canagrex. He also said that the agency would operate from a three-year corporate plan and that each year it would be scrutinized by Parliament to ensure that it was carrying out its mandate. That is not a bad idea either. He also said that after five years Canagrex would be brought before the Standing Committee on Agriculture for a complete review and that there would be a provision for an annual comprehensive review by the Auditor General. He stated that the president would receive direction from the board of directors and that the legislation would clearly state that Canagrex would not get involved in the products handled by the Canadian Wheat Board and by the Canadian Dairy Commission. I thought that here was an outline in the modern state for an export agency that was not too bad at all.
In February of 1985, the Hon. Member for Algoma asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), among other things, whether or not, in view of the success of this corporation in the

October 20, 1986
Canagrex
to a state corporation as contemplated by Canagrex? Could the Hon. Member not see that the private community that has marketed our products so well for over 100 years of Confederation could continue to sell Canadian goods where Canadian goods can be sold and could do so at a much lesser cost than the cost of a great big bureaucracy?


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, I would be glad to attempt to answer that question because it points out the real intellectual problem the Hon. Member has. He feels that if something has worked well for the last 100 years, it will serve us for the next 100 years. That is where we part company.
Evidently, the Liberal Government of the day, through Eugene Whelan, felt that the time had arrived to adopt new techniques and new ways of competing with the reality of international markets. If the Hon. Member were to carry his logic to its ultimate conclusion, he would try to sell the Toronto Transit Commission to the private sector. I invite him to try to find someone who will provide that service as effectively, safely and well as a publicly owned agency does.
We know that the Hon. Member is biased against the presence of the state in the market-place. There is nothing wrong with the presence of the state in the market-place. We have had a mixed economy for decades. If we had not had a mixed economy, we would not have Air Canada and Canadian Pacific. We would not have the CBC and CTV.


Arnold John Malone: What's that got to do with it?


Charles L. Caccia: A broader principle is under discussion. If the Government of the day decided to create Canagrex, it was because it felt that it would be desirable and in the interest of promoting agricultural products in competition with other nations to have such an agency. That was the Liberal position which I outlined.
Mr. Whelan went one step beyond that and said that he wanted to have on the board of directors of Canagrex people from the private sector. I suppose this would please the Hon. Member because it would mean that there would be a mix. A publicly oriented institution would be run by private citizens. That was not such a bad idea.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, in light of the question that was just asked about the ability of the Canadian Commercial Corporation to make sales, I wonder if the Hon. Member would care to comment further. The member of the Opposition pointed out that the Canadian Commercial Corporation is able to make the sales, and I do not argue with that. I wonder, however, if the Hon. Member would care to comment on what agency or group is now available after the demise of Canagrex to gather the products from the various provinces and farmers and put them in position so the corporation could make sales. Is that not the vacuum that Canagrex was designed to fill?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No, no, no.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It is indeed. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) says that it was not. However, I read the objectives of Canagrex and they in fact included the ability to gather together products from within the country and to act with co-operatives, individuals, marketing boards and other corporations to gather products together so they will be in a position to be exported. Right now, we lack that kind of an agency. The Canadian Commercial Corporation can indeed make a sale on those very small products that are only grown in small amounts hither and yon across the country, but only if someone gathers them together so that the corporation may do so. Without Canagrex, there is no agency to do that.


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, as usual, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) makes much more sense to me than the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).


Mr. Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, if indeed Canagrex were of great importance to the agricultural community, then I would assume that western Canadian agricultural and farm organizations would be supporting the Liberal Party in its attempt to prevent the abolition of it. Therefore, can the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) indicate to the House which western Canadian farm organizations other than the National Farmers Union are today opposing the abolition of Canagrex?


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, at the time of the announcement of the measure, a number of agricultural organizations came out in support of Canagrex.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No, today.


Charles L. Caccia: It is important to know that that support was there at the time the measure was announced. I would imagine that those organizations had good reasons to support Canagrex. There were a number of those organizations and I would gladly list them for the Hon. Member if I only had the time to find the list among the papers on my desk.
Across the country, support for Canagrex was there. There was support for it in the House of Commons. Canagrex generated very good sales in its first year. If some of those organizations have changed their minds, perhaps the Hon. Member will have the opportunity to make that point in his speech and to explain to us why they changed their views. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that at that time, support for Canagrex was very strong and came from many organizations.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I listened to a lot of diatribe from the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and I must say that those were most interesting comments coming from an Hon. Member who does not know a Hereford from a heifer. When it comes down to the whole question of whether or not Canagrex was an accepted organization, I can tell the Hon. Member that those Members of Parliament from the regions of Canada who will go home to
October 20, 1986

first year-in which it sold over $16 million worth of farm products and with another $ 160 million under consideration- the Minister would be prepared to reconsider his decision. Evidently the Minister was already locked in and could not give a favourable reply, as much as his heart would have moved him in that direction.
The Hon. Member for Algoma also asked the Minister of Agriculture why it is that when the United States and the European Economic Community countries are more aggressive in marketing and selling agricultural commodities we are shutting down the one organization that was set up to sell our commodities abroad. That was a very good question and a very relevant one. I suppose the Hon. Member asked the question in the hope that somehow or other the Government might reconsider this measure. As is his custom, the Minister of Agriculture gave a very diplomatic answer. He said that he wanted to make it clear that the Government would follow very aggressively the export market for agricultural commodities. He went on to say that the Government was satisfied, given the very dismal record of Canagrex-words which come as a surprise to me in light of what the Hon. Member for Algoma reported to him-that it can be done far more successfully, efficiently and effectively with officials in his Department. That reply really floored me. It is obvious that one cannot be more effective and more efficient on the same budgetary basis without creating a separate agency that will promote a specific purpose. That is what we do in many walks of life, especially in terms of discharging other public responsibilities. 1 am sure that in a quiet hour the Minister of Agriculture would agree that it would be more effective to do this outside the Department. I say this not because there is something wrong with the Department. Evidently, if there is a task-oriented agency which focuses on exports it can produce much more than some agency buried on the sixteenth floor which is in competition with many other occupations. The fact is that the number of officials available in any given Department has suffered very badly under the Tory administration.
The logic of this move is very unconvincing. Therefore, the Bill before us to dissolve Canagrex is one that leaves us at a bit of a loss in terms of understanding what the main purpose of the Government is. Does it want to reduce the deficit? If so, I think that it is penny wise but pound foolish. In this move it is forgoing an opportunity. It is dismantling something that could be very useful in the long term.
Why do I say that? I am convinced that, in the pursuit of regional economic development, we have to ensure, among other things, that the products of the regions, outside Quebec and Ontario in particular, because that is where the development has to take place, and their ability to thrive is essential. No one will disagree with that. As a city slicker not very knowledgeable about the details of agriculture, but nevertheless capable of putting two and two together, it seems to me that one important way of promoting regional economy-in regions which need it-would be to put in place an effective agency that would help the export of certain products that are
Canagrex
agricultural and regional at the edges of the country. I refer to potatoes in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, and tree fruit in British Columbia. I refer to lentils and peas in Alberta, canola oil in the Prairies and evaporated milk from I-don't-know-where. There is a long list of commodities that one could produce to make a very powerful case in favour of Canagrex, in favour of this specialized agency whose dismantling we are now debating.
To retain the services of Canagrex would help the task of strengthening the agricultural economies of these provinces. So it happens that a good idea which had already been put into initial practice is disappearing. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma, has already said, we on this side of the House express our regret at its passing. It is to the credit of Eugene Whelan that this idea was launched. It was my understanding that at that time the idea was supported by small, medium and large-sized agricultural producers in many parts of the country. The idea of opening a new chapter of endeavour to make Canada more competitive abroad in a highly and increasingly competitive market situation and to adopt certain models that have been proven to be successful in other nations are ideas that appeal to everyone. I regret to say that it seems to me that we are falling back and going into the past. We are not seizing an opportunity and are not moving with the times.
It would not have cost the Governmet very much to recognize a good idea. It has recognized many good ideas of ours. Quite rightly, it adopted all our measures dealing with acid rain. In the end, these measures will serve the public interest.
The Government should have realized that Canagrex makes sense. Government Members should have realized that Canagrex is something they would want to pursue in order to give more help to the economies of the poorer regions and to keep us competitive. Instead, they gave it up. That is most regrettable.
I join with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma, in expressing the views of the Official Opposition on this matter. We thought that Canagrex would have put Canada on the export markets map and would have given us an opportunity, in increasingly difficult trade times, to have an edge which we otherwise would not have.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member is really speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party and is indicating that the Liberal Party does not believe in the role of private enterprise in marketing products. Clearly the Canadian Commercial Corporation is a vehicle for marketing products to countries that believe in state ownership of the means of production and distribution. That corporation can handle that.
Is it the view of the Liberal Party that the only way we can properly market our products is by turning over the marketing



October 20, 1986

make the claim that they had a part in dismantling it will go home to a hero's welcome.
It was unaccepted in the regions of the country for two reasons. First, they did not want the inefficiency which attaches itself to government structuring and organizations which only Liberal and NDP Members can envision as being fruitful. Second, Canagrex in and of itself was destroying by the buy-sell clause the very mentality of the farm community across Canada-the enterprising nature and spirit of those persons. It is on those two principles that this issue is following. It is those two issues which the Parties opposing the dismantling of Canagrex do not understand.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Do you prefer that farmers give it away?


Arnold John Malone: The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) should know that since we have taken the money away from Canagrex, Canada has increased its sales of agricultural products abroad. In the area of grain we have made more contracts, not less. In other markets we have moved in to sell more. The Hon. Member stands here trying to pretend, as would a member of the NDP, that if he sees a problem or thinks there is one, the thing to do is to build another government tower for another staff or another bureaucracy. They hope, as did the Liberals for 15 years or 20 years, that it will somehow be a symbol for the people. They think that the people can be given a building and a staff of bureaucrats and that somehow the problem will go away. The truth of the matter is that the Progressive Conservative Government and its caucus members believe that we have all the instruments within the Department and other Departments of Government to do effectively everything Canagrex is doing and save Canadian taxpayers $6 million.
Members of the Opposition would rather have spent the $6 million. They would rather have had a building so that they could say that the building and its bureaucrats would be out there trying in some way. We have had a rendition of Eugene Whelan's speeches to try to persuade us to retain Canagrex. That is its own unpersuasiveness. It was under that stubborn administration that the buy-sell clause could not be removed, and that buy-sell clause was offensive. In my province, and very particularly in my constituency, we would have lost $2 million with the buy-sell clause in the Canagrex organization in exports by the Alberta Swine Breeders Association to Mexico and the Pacific Rim.
The opposition Parties laud this wonderful organization. They say that it would have enhanced agricultural exports. It would have destroyed parts of the country with the buy-sell clause because it would have destroyed the private initiatives which could have taken place around the world.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No.


Arnold John Malone: 1 hear the groan of the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre. He thinks it would not have
Canagrex
happened. I do not know why that Hon. Member, who lives in my constituency, flew down here. Surely he would have done enough research. Why have organizations in the Province of Alberta, with the exception of the NFU, been making representations day after day? Why would they do that and fly down here if there was no concern? In his speech the Hon. Member said there was no reason for concern. There was a reason for concern, and that is why it is going.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Why didn't they kill the provincial agencies which had those powers?


Arnold John Malone: Also the Hon. Member said in his speech that this was like a funeral or a wake. This is the happiest funeral I have ever been at. The "awake" will come when he goes home and his constituents find out that he tried to retain that national government organization which would make Canagrex sit at the desk with farmers as they arrange their management programs. He wanted a buy-sell clause which would ensure that everything was done through the Government of Canada rather than by independent entrepreneurs making farm decisions in the way farmers want.
I listened to the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). He tried to leave the impression that destroying Canagrex was the first thing that we as a Government had done for Canadian agriculture. There is not enough time in the rest of this week to outline what we have done for agriculture. More than 317 initiatives have been undertaken by the Progressive Conservative Government for some $5.6 billion. The best the Liberals could have done in a four-year period was $2 billion in agricultural assistance. We have a commitment for $1 billion more in payments which will go to farmers because of crop conditions this year, so the amount of assistance we have provided is approaching $7 billion. No Government in the history of Canada has made such a severe commitment to our grain producers.
I will not list all our achievements. When Hon. Members rise and defy the fact that there has been the removal of the farm fuel tax, the fact that there is a $500,000 capital gains exemption, the fact that amendments were made to the Western Grain Stabilization Act which put money into the hands of prairie farmers, and the fact that there have been some 317 different achievements, they are not being very frank with their constituents back home. However, that does not concern me so much because I know that in farm communities there is a recognition that while world conditions are very difficult, they have a Government which is sensitive and is trying to make agriculture work effectively for them.
Let us talk about the international market. The most important thing we can do is to make the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade accept the notion that what is happening universally is unfair to food producers. We would expect not to have the continual pretending of opposition Members that nothing is being done. We would expect them to shoulder the wheel in the interests of food producers. We would expect them to applaud the actions of the Prime Minister (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
October 20, 1986
Canagrex
Mulroney) in Tokyo and the actions of the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in Uruguay. For the first time in history agriculture will be a part of the discussions at GATT. No one should expect that in one negotiation with one set of signatures we will have the capacity to turn it around to the point where Europe will suddenly have zero agricultural subsidies. Such an expectation would be unrealistic. However, I am optimistic that we can turn the corner so that farmers on the basis of efficiency can compete in the international market, and it will not be a case of treasury against treasury as is the situation today. We would benefit from the assistance of the opposition Parties in that objective. If we had a full Canadian force, if we had the NDP and Liberal Members saying that we need those measures at GATT, it would be helpful to Canada and its farming community. Instead we get the pretence that nothing has taken place when they know otherwise. I submit that that is not a very responsible way to treat the agricultural community or to discuss the whole question of Canagrex.
I should like to refer to the remarks of the Hon. Minister today. He indicated that the success of agricultural trade did not necessarily depend upon the creation of another building. Too often in the past Governments have had the tendency to create special organizations and agencies to do a job when what was really needed was a greater drive and initiative on the part of Government.
The creation of Canagrex by the previous Government exemplifies that trend perfectly. The Hon. Minister stated earlier today and made it abundantly clear that Canagrex was created to do a job which could be done just as well within the existing agencies of the present Government, namely, the Agricultural Products Board, the Department of External Affairs, the Export Development Corporation and Agriculture Canada. For proof of this fact, Madam Speaker, you need only examine the record of the present Government since it came to power two years ago in the area of agricultural trade. The Government has made real progress in expanding foreign markets for Canada's agricultural goods and services and it has done so without Canagrex, without additional agencies, without additional millions of dollars and without wasteful duplication of services. Instead, the present Government has made efficient, effective use of existing resources and manpower, and I submit the taxpayers of Canada will applaud such an initiative. This was accomplished by improving co-operation and co-ordination between the federal agencies and the provincial Governments. That, I might add parenthetically, was quite a break from past traditions when the previous Government despised its role vis-a-vis the provinces. We met in our first year more times with provincial counterparts than the previous Government did in the four years of its existence. That whole relationship of making Canada work is dependent on making these joint jurisdictions work, and agriculture happens to be one of those.
The first commercial shipment of Canadian strawberry plants was sent to Spain on October 7 from two Nova Scotia nurseries. The sale of these plants was the direct result of private sector co-operation under the Canada-Nova Scotia Agri-Food Development Agreement. The shipments are Canada's first entry into the Spanish strawberry plant market and substantial additional sales are likely to follow.
In recent months, Maritime producers have found new customers for their hay in the United Kingdom and in the United States. With both federal and provincial assistance under the economic and regional development agreements as well as support from the federal Export Expansion Fund, this developing industry has been able to demonstrate to foreign buyers the quality and value of its product, particularly as a feed for racehorses. Canada's share of this highly specialized market is steadily expanding, with Ontario producers now servicing customers in Florida. Considerable potential remains for further growth.
Canada has recently gained a foothold into the lucrative Soviet markets for dairy breeding stock and semen. Working together with the assistance of the Export Expansion Fund, federal, provincial and industrial representatives have mounted a campaign which could eventually lead to tens of millions of dollars in sales for Canadian cattle producers. The Export Expansion Fund was also used to assist public and private sector agents in cracking markets for swine breeding stock and semen in South America. Again, the leverage gain today may well lead to larger sales in the future.
May I again add that in light of all the successes we are having in that regard, the Liberal and the New Democratic Parties would still like to build another highrise tower, fill it with bureaucrats and pretend somehow that in difficult times instead of getting present agencies to work together by holding up a symbol, that symbol might look good to the people back home and they could pretend that they are doing something. We would rather not pretend or live with symbols. We would rather look to the record and point out that we have success on paper and that success speaks for itself.
Agriculture Canada, again through the Export Expansion Fund, has entered into a very successful relationship with Canadian engineering firms specializing in agricultural and processing machinery. A number of foreign buyers have now made trial purchases of Canadian technology, and further sales are anticipated. Expansion in this industry would help promote the economic diversification to which the Government of Canada has long been committed. These sales involve a lot of differrent products and a lot of different countries, but in the end they all stem from the same thing; the skill and the imagination of industry, provincial and federal agents. This is what the agricultural producers and processes of Canada need today, not new agencies, not new buildings and bureaucracies but an innovative, aggressive approach to marketing that will allow us to fulfil our potential as an exporting nation without placing a further burden on our Treasury.

October 20, 1986

I might add, again parenthetically, Madam Speaker, that the success has also come about because of the will that is demonstrated by the Ministry to make those sales and to show leadership and a desire to knock on doors in the international markets. It is not going to be a case of developing a new agency, putting a name on it in neon lights and pretending for a moment that that in and of itself will guarantee some success. The Government has proven it can take that approach within available resources. I would emphasize that all the advances 1 have mentioned have been achieved within a framework of fiscal restraint.
The Government has applied that same initiative in the efforts to reduce trade restrictions and unreasonable export subsidies in the international market-place.
Through bilateral negotiations with the United States, our Government is attempting to remove trade barriers which restrict access to our largest export market. Agriculture is well represented in these negotiations through the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), who is a member of the federal Cabinet special subcommittee overseeing the talks; farm industry representatives on the International Trade Advisory Committee, the main link between negotiators and the private sector; and a sectoral advisory group on international trade devoted exclusively to agriculture, food and beverages. This body, which comprises some 30 members drawn from all branches of the agriculture sector, is the largest of all the special advisory committees dealing with those trade negotiations. The Government of Canada is actively pursuing the liberalization of agricultural trade at the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations.
I want for a moment to add one other aspect about freer trade and say that I am one who believes-and I know there are others who share this view-that had Canagrex been established in a large office tower staffed with people as an institution that may not have been the symbol the opposition Members wanted for greater trade, it may well have been the symbol that would have restricted trade vis-a-vis the United States, which is our largest market. That would have been held as one of the symbols that could have done us the greatest damage in the long run.
The Government of Canada is actively pursuing the liberalization of those trade negotiations, as Members will know from the Uruguay initiative. I commend the Government for its efforts to end the international trade war which is threatening the livelihood of our grain farmers. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) pointed out in his address to the House on October 3, our farmers are being penalized through no fault of their own. They are being hurt and they have done nothing wrong.
As part of its deep commitment to agriculture, the Government is taking appropriate and effective action to end the injustices prevailing in global markets.
Canagrex
I hear the word "time", Madam Speaker, and I see my time has expired. Thank you very much for the opportunity to improve the mood and optimism of the Hon. Member for Davenport, the Hon. Member for Algoma, and the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre concerning farmers and their ability to run their farms without a large government bureaucracy.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member seemed to be going off sort of half-cocked, not really knowing much about the Canagrex organization and the fact that it was operating for several months. It was able to do a great deal while it was allowed to operate. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) and the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) do not seem to think producers of smaller volume agricultural commodities should have the same kind of assistance that we see offered to producers of major commodities through organizations like the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian Dairy Commission. I would be interested in knowing why the Hon. Member is opposed to these national organizations. I am really hard put to understand why producers of these smaller volume commodities should not have the same kind of assistance in marketing. I just do not follow the logic. I am sure the Hon. Member is not suggesting we should get rid of the Canadian Dairy Commission or the Canadian Wheat Board.
Canagrex, of course, would operate as a small agency to assist the smaller volume producer. I would be interested in knowing why he feels the producer of those commodities should not have the same kind of assistance from a small and specialized unit like Canagrex as it was established and operating a couple of years ago.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member thought I went off half-cocked. I want him to know that I am fully cocked. The Hon. Member tries to make out these sales he talks about as being rather significant and large. I submit that any objective analysis will show they are quite insignificant and small. Moreover, there is virtually no data or logical reason to believe that the sales made by Canagrex with its $6 million budget, buildings and people, would not have been made anyway. Those sales would have been made regardless. That is on the record and easily understandable. Another fact is that the information Canagrex obtained, it obtained from the Department of Agriculture.
What the Hon. Member is talking about is $6 million now, and 10 years from now it would be an amount that would make $6 million look pretty small. This is just another example of the fact that we are in different political Parties and I, for one, am glad we are. He is simply saying that as a Liberal he would build more buildings, create more bureaucracy, hold up a symbol, and believe it will do some good.

October 20, 1986
Canagrex
Ele asks about the Wheat Board and the Dairy Commission, am I going to destroy them. That is the difference between a Progressive Conservative and a Liberal. If you are a Progressive Conservative you ask your farm organizations what they want to do. They wanted a dairy policy and they got one. Before that the farmers said they wanted a Canadian Wheat Board and they got one. I am proud to be in the Party that was responsible for that. However, the overwhelming evidence from farming organizations all across the country was that they did not want Canagrex. The Progressive Conservatives are in government now and most of those organizations are saying "thank goodness" because now they do not have to live with Canagrex.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member says that farms across the country did not want Canagrex. In fact they did. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union and many other groups expressed grave concern when the Government destroyed Canagrex on black Thursday, November 8, 1984.
The Hon. Member says these crops are very small. I have a list of items from 1979 which might have benefited from Canagrex if it had been allowed to function. The list includes things like rapeseed oil and cake, $113 million worth of exports; soya bean cake and oil, $13 million; mustard seed and mustard flower, $21 million; animal feed, $168 million. The list goes on and on. In the horticultural field there are things, such as apples and apple juice, potatoes, peas, plus many other products, the sale of which could have been helped by an organization like Canagrex.
The Government seems bent mainly on reducing budgets. For example, the budget of the Department of Agriculture was reduced by some $50 million. The budget of the Farm Credit Corporation was reduced from about $825 million in 1984-85 to around $225 million this year. At the same time we see other Governments, such as the Ontario Government, increasing their budgets in these areas. The Liberal Government of Ontario has increased its budget in this area over the last 12 months by some 39 per cent. Yet the federal Government is cutting back at the very time when the world marketing of agricultural products is the toughest it has been since the 1930s.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I am not sure if this is going to be the easiest question or the hardest question I have ever answered. The Hon. Member reads off a long list of things which might have benefited from Canagrex if Canagrex had been around, along with a lot of other assumptions. The fact is that much of what the Hon. Member was reading off is what I referred to during my speech when I said we had achieved the sale of these products through existing agencies. That is not good enough for the Member for Algoma. He wants to spend $6 billion to build a building and then fill it full of bureaucrats. Today we essentially have one-stop shopping for agricultural sales into the international market. We have
consolidated. There is a central area to which you can go which is working and effective. Had Canagrex proceeded we would still have the tripartite system of External Affairs, Agriculture, and Canagrex, and there would have been the continual government chase-around which was typical of the Liberal administration which confused everyone and was not making the export market work.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, as the Member for Essex-Windsor it is essential that I participate in this debate if for no other reason that out of friendliness to my next door neighbour. There is a tremendous contradiction in what the Conservatives are saying in this debate. It is obvious that they have not studied the question and sorted it out. When they talk about international trade they say it is necessary and crucial that we expand our trade. For example, the Joint Committee on International Affairs concluded last spring that above all as a trading country we must dramatically expand our capacity to export our commodities and manufactured goods and to explore new markets to find new customers and customers for new products.
Yet the first thing that the Government succeeds in doing after taking power is to do away with an agency which was established expressly and explicitly to achieve that new market penetration, that expansion of trade internationally and that development of new product interest by potential customers in other parts of the world in what we produce in Canada.
I fear that there is simply no way that the Conservative Party can escape the fact that it is totally, completely and foolishly contradicting itself. On the one hand it says that it wants expanded trade and will push as aggresssively as possible to get it, and on the other it is saying that it will destroy, demolish and do away with an agency which, in its early months of operation, was quite successful in doing precisely what they now say they want to do. That demonstrates to us that this is not a discussion about a particular agency. It is a conflict within a governing Party which, when you boil it down, believes in ideology.
The Government believes that the private sector must somehow, no matter what the situation, be exalted, buttressed and turned into government policy. This is in contrast to the approach of accepting that there are realities in the world which must be dealt with and confronted. Most times those realities can best be confronted by assisting the private sector, but that assistance to the private sector cannot become a holy grail, it cannot become something that is so enmeshed in the brain of the governing Party that it becomes an end in itself.
We must have the kind of pragmatism which recognizes that when it makes sense to use a government agency we should create such an agency to do the job. It made sense in the past in many cases to create and use such government agencies. They have been used successfully by our railroads and airlines. Simply to assume ideologically, as the previous speaker did, that because it is not the private sector selling the products of
October 20, 1986

Canadian agriculture abroad somehow it is original sin, is to miss the facts of the history of our country.
When one looks objectively to see what Canagrex actually succeeded in doing, one sees that it was not the great firebreathing dragon trying to get rid of the private sector as the previous Member suggested. It was, instead, a pragmatic, sensible agency meant to try to broaden our markets throughout the world and penetrate new markets which we had not previously succeeded in penetrating.
For instance, I quote from the comments of the President of Canagrex when he spoke before the Standing Committee on Agriculture in 1985. He described some of the things which Canagrex was actually carrying out. He said, "We were determined that we would leave the buying and selling to the private sector", which makes quite a mockery of the heart of the argument of the previous speaker who said that what was really devastatingly wrong with this dragon called Canagrex was that it was going to buy and sell. The head of Canagrex told us quite clearly and bluntly that it did not intend to buy and sell in the private sector. Instead, the objective of Canagrex was to "facilitate sales and provide information". What more common-sense, pragmatic approach could you possibly look for than that? I could go on with some of the actual facts which demonstrate what Canagrex was all about. I will continue to quote from the remarks of the President and Chief Executive Officer of Canagrex. He said:
For example, we had a pork producer accompany our mission to Singapore. We had a potato producer travel with us to Cuba. We also had tobacco growers travel with our group to Egypt, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, where we initiated the negotiation process to assist in selling tobacco to these markets.
I might say that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) would have far less of a problem facing his constituents in Elgin if he could point to Canagrex and say that the Government managed to find new markets through Canagrex which have succeeded in expanding their potential market, despite the fact that tobacco consumption in Canada is declining so dramatically.
Mr. Story went on to say:
We were in the process of building close relationships with central buying agencies and private buyers in these and many other markets. We also conducted similar market development programs in the Phillipines, Colombia, Panama and Venezuela. The valuable market information which we gathered was fed back to the Canadian industry.
It was not sent back to that building of bureaucrats which the Member who spoke previously held up as somehow being the symbol of Canagrex. Rather, the information was fed back to the Canadian industry itself where it could do a good job in opening up new markets and providing that industry with new potential.
I see the Minister ducking in and out behind the curtains because he is undoubtedly embarrassed by the fact that tobacco farmers in Elgin County could have gained so much more from a Canagrex that was carried forward in this common-sense, practical way.
Canagrex
I am certain that is why the Minister first supported the notion of Canagrex when it was brought before the House. It was only through the pressures from his colleagues from the west, who I believe have always perhaps taken too ideological an approach to the farmers in our country, that he was forced to change his mind. I believe we must recognize that this common-sense, practical agency had managed to build new markets and new potential for all of us. Let me also say as an economist that it had done so at a most remarkably cheap price.
The question was asked: What was the cost to the Government of all aspects in establishing Canagrex? I want the House to remember this price when we are given this image of a huge building full of bureaucrats. The total price in establishing Canagrex was $2,659 million. Let us compare that to the free trade negotiations which have cost the Canadian taxpayer almost $2 million and so far have brought us nothing but disaster. When I make that comparison I cannot expect that less than $3 million for Canagrex would have represented some kind of colossal expenditure which would bankrupt the Canadian taxpayer. It is exactly the contrary.
In addition to that very low cost we must recognize that this agency was also succeeding in expanding its activities considerably. We see the same answer from the Minister of Agriculture, which tells us quite clearly that we had total sales of $16 million which Canagrex carried out. In addition-noting that this is not the head of Canagrex but the Minister who is providing this answer-there were transactions in process worth a potential $100 million, expected to be finalized by March 31, 1985. This agency, which cost less than $3 million, established this dramatic record within the first year of its operation. It achieved a sales record of potentially close to $116 million.
We have the further testimony from the head of Canagrex itself, which suggests that this was very much underestimated. Speaking to the same Standing Committee on Agriculture, he suggested that as of March 11, 1985, Canagrex was involved in potential projects of approximately $162 million.
It seems to me, as trade critic for our Party, that this kind of trade expansion, the penetration of foreign markets, and tremendous thrusts into the rest of the world are exactly what we should be doing in the context of our agriculture. This expansion is being severely limited by the United States Farm Bill. I believe all of us in the House have expressed our regret about that Bill, but as one who went to Uruguay as an observer with the GATT negotiations which took place there, I must address the previous speaker's comments that, "We have worked as hard as we possibly can in order to reduce that pressure from the United States with respect to the U.S. Farm Bill". In fact, through the Cairns group in which we rather weakly participated, and through the GATT conference itself in Uruguay, we experienced a major defeat which should be recognized as such.
While it is quite true that the question of agriculture was put on the agenda, it was not taken on in such a way that it

October 20, 1986
Canagrex
would have the kind of fast track urgency that all of us- observers and delegation members-wanted desperately carried forward in GATT. In fact, we were outmanoeuvred and outsmarted by the European Community. We did not play as forceful and strong a role within the Cairns group at GATT as we should have. Consequently, we did not get what we had hoped for in our attempts to improve world trade. So we have to look for other pragmatic, sensible ways to expand our trade world-wide. We cannot expect GATT to come to our rescue. Canagrex was one such approach. I have to express, if only for my neighbour in the green stetson, my sense of regret that the Government so ideologically did away with that institution at a time when in fact it could have contributed greatly to this country's agricultural exports.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) would be kind enough to explain some of the philosophy we heard in the House today since I know he is an expert in economic and political philosophies. Would he explain what seems to me to be a contradiction in some of the speeches we heard today, particularly the speech of the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), wherein he said he had to oppose the Canagrex legislation. His constituents made him do it because of the powers which were listed in the Canagrex legislation, particularly those powers that permitted the agency on occasion to buy and sell.
Could the Hon. Member explain to us, out of his knowledge of economic and political philosophies, why it would be acceptable, and seems to be acceptable, for the Hon. Member for Crowfoot and his colleagues to accept those kinds of powers in provincial legislation, since virtually all of the provinces have identical or nearly identical provincial legislation permitting them to market, buy and sell and trade agricultural products, but not federal? Does this have something to do with a Conservative philosophy of federal and provincial rights, and so on, or is it simply something which is very hard to understand?


Steven W. Langdon: I think, Madam Speaker, that the first answer to that is to say it is something which is simply very, very hard to understand. It is yet another contradiction in the whole series of contradictions which have been demonstrated today in the debate on this Bill. And not just today. This Canagrex Bill has ground its way slowly through the House of Commons for some years now. One hopes that eventually a more practical, common-sense approach to the promotion abroad of agricultural products could somehow be taken by Members opposite.
I would just like to speak about that for a moment, if I may, not from a somehow philosophic or econometric perspective but just from the perspective of farmers within my constituency. Hay producers, for instance, in my constituency, would like very much to have markets explored throughout the world for some of the output they produce. Soya bean producers are devastated by the prices they have to accept this year as a
result of the Chicago market perambulations. Wheat producers are hit by the U.S. Farm Bill and the subsidized sales of U.S. wheat, which have reduced their prices devastatingly. There are the corn producers. One could continue the list ad infinitum. These farmers face a tremendous crisis, and I think it is very important for a government of any stripe, but especially a government which sees itself as more pragmatic and more sensible, as the Minister, I know, likes to think of himself, to look at how this agency could have helped such farmers and farmers in the Minister's own constituency to reach other markets. I think a lot of the opposition to Canagrex in fact was bureaucratic opposition from the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, and so on. I think those are the real culprits in Canagrex's death. But the Conservative Party is its pallbearer and it will have to bear the regrets of the country for what it has done.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I have a couple of questions for the Hon. Member, Madam Speaker. When the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) spoke, I am sure he succeeded in confusing some people because he started talking about the sale of grain. I would like the Hon. Member to comment on the relationship between grain and Canagrex. When the Hon. Member for Crowfoot began his remarks he said that the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), who had just spoken, would not know a Hereford from a heifer. I think he would agree that sometimes a heifer can be a Hereford.


John Wise: And the reverse is true.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I really think that remark indicated he was accusing the Hon. Member for Davenport of something that he himself did not appear to know anything about. Would the Hon. Member enlarge upon the statement of the Hon. Member for Crowfoot concerning grain and Canagrex? I am sure that must have been rather confusing to some people.


Steven W. Langdon: I would certainly not want to enter into a lengthy debate on the Hereford-heifer debate which faces us. In Essex County, unfortunately, the dairy industry has been badly reduced in recent years. I would say that the comments of the previous speaker entirely overlooked the fact that the Wheat Board would continue to be the most prominent agency by far for selling grain. That is as it should be because it has a fine record. Canagrex was not expected in any sense to replace or undercut the activities of the Wheat Board.
I think the only conclusion to which one can come is that in this issue, as in so many others, the Conservative Party is fundamentally confused and contradicts itself. It talks about providing leadership to the country but in fact it provides confusion. It cannot sort out the kind of approach to agriculture, to trade, to industry, or to the whole range of our economic problems that would give this country the very badly needed direction which is so desperately needed in Canada in the 1980s.
October 20, 1986


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I have a second question, Madam Speaker. When the announcement was first made of the dissolving of Canagrex, the Government announced that resources would be made available to the Department of External Affairs to continue the work of Canagrex. However, it would appear that this has not been the case. An examination of the Estimates for 1985-86 reveals no commitment in this regard whatsoever. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot made a great uproar about the $6 million initial cost for Canagrex. In my view, $6 million is nothing but petty cash to the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney). I cannot see why the Hon. Member would complain so much about that.
Is the Hon. Member aware of additional funds which have been made available to promote the sale of agricultural products from Canada to other countries, particularly Third World countries?


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, it is the case that in ministry after ministry cut-backs have occurred as opposed to expansions. This is true whether we talk about agriculture, external affairs or trade. It is simply not possible to see the expansion that the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) suggests took place. I think the Hon. Member's speech contained even more than the usual confusion which we so often hear from Conservative Members.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I too would like to congratulate you on taking the chair. I wish you every success in your new role. We in the House will try to do our best to make your life reasonably happy.
The debate today has been a very interesting one in that it has brought out the philosophy, particularly that of government Members, that anything sponsored by Government in the way of sales will never work. With respect to Canagrex as an instrument of sales it is interesting to note that its board of directors consisted in the majority of people from the private sector. That is almost tantamount to saying that once people from the private sector move into government they lose all their previous principles. I do not buy that. It is important to have people from the private sector in sales positions in government. It is important to have a good mix which will provide an ongoing experience to offer to them. In turn, those who are used to the business world will be very much aware of how to deal with the business community. I think this was an excellent arrangement for the management of Canagrex.
We heard from Members opposite about the tremendous job the Government has done in the field of agriculture. Some 317 points were mentioned but not listed. They sounded something like the 338 promises that we heard about a little over two years ago.
I would like to refer for a moment to the 1984 election campaign. In particular I would like to refer to the Tory candidate against whom I ran. In fact, some people say that I
Canagrex
ran against two Tory candidates. One was the actual Tory candidate and the other was his twin brother, the Mayor of Brampton. It was not unusual for the Mayor of Brampton to visit my constituency for several days. It was difficult to tell one brother from the other. It was very handy to have the two of them roaming around the riding at once. So I feel I can say that I defeated two Tory candidates in the last election campaign, one being the Mayor of Brampton and the other the Tory candidate for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. It is tough out there, Madam Speaker.
During the same election campaign, in a debate sponsored by the Federation of Agriculture, my opponent stated that if the people would only give the Conservatives two years they would solve the agricultural problems in Canada. Those two years are long gone, and what are the Conservatives doing today? They are paying farmers to get off the farms. They are trying to pay them in order to rid them of their problems. They are really in there pitching for these people. It seems to be the only policy they can find. They cannot find policies to keep farmers on the land so they pay them to get off the land.
Canagrex was never given a fair chance to prove itself. No one in the House can say with any validity that Canagrex could not have been just as successful in foreign markets as the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Canadian Wheat Board have been in operating under their mandates. Are government Members saying that because the Canadian Wheat Board is public sector it cannot perform a job? It has been performing a job. It is part of the public sector. The Canadian Dairy Commission has been performing an excellent job, and it is part of the public sector. To say that Canagrex would never work is not giving it a fair chance or a fair hearing. It just cannot be accepted as the truth.
It has been said that nothing in the public sector will work. Members opposite will ensure that it does not work. We have in place a Government which has slashed the budget of the National Research Council in half while at the same time saying that jobs are not being destroyed. Members opposite say that jobs are not being destroyed but, rather, that they are being transferred somewhere else. In terms of research the job is ongoing. One does not come along one day, disrupt the jobs, send the workers off in different directions and then believe that the same production will be achieved with ongoing programs.
I read an editorial on the weekend which stated that the NRC could drop its number of employees from 3,000 to 1,500 by the year 1988. That is disastrous. It is suggested that the same type of situation could occur with Atomic Energy of Canada. And Members opposite would have us destroy Canagrex today. They tried it in the last Parliament and it did not work.
When the Bill was before the House in 1982, approximately 26 per cent of our world market was in Third World countries. What is needed in Third World countries if one is to sell agricultural products there? Dock equipment, storage equipment and transportation equipment are necessary to move
542

October 20, 1986
Adjournment Debate
products to where they are needed. I ask Hon. Members to think what that would mean to the African continent today in light of what has taken place since 1982. Here is a major world market in which there is no infrastructure available to sell Canadian food properly. It is nothing new for food to be shipped to some countries in the world to rot on the docks before it ever gets delivered. Canagrex was specifically set up to deal with such circumstances. It was set up to sell aggressively. If one is to sell aggressively one has to be able to deliver one's product. To say that it would cost $6 million to set up Canagrex for major areas of the agricultural community when the Estimates project something in the order of $12.3 million over the first three years is like talking about peanuts to the Prime Minister and his Government. They keep that sum of money for petty cash. That would not even build an airport for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. I am sorry to have to interrupt the Hon. Member for Renfrew- Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) but it is six o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, tonight I want to tell you a little bit about a neighbour of mine. My neighbour is a very hard-working woman. She spends a good part of every day working around her home. She spends a good deal of time cleaning her home, dusting, polishing, vacuuming, sweeping and all of the other things that have to be done to keep a home or a building clean. If this neighbour of mine were to be doing these things outside of her own home, we would probably say that she was in the cleaning business.
This lady does a lot of other things as well. She spends a lot of time cooking for her entire family. She has to plan meals in advance, prepare those meals, serve them, collect the dishes afterward, wash the dishes, dry them and put them away. I venture to say that if she were doing that outside of her own home, you and I, Madam Speaker, would say that she was probably in the restaurant business.
In addition to that, she spends a lot of her time washing her own clothes and the clothes of members of her family. She hangs those clothes out to dry, brings them back in and gets them ironed, folded and put away. I suspect that if she were doing that outside of her own home, you and I, Madam Speaker, as well as other Canadians, would probably say that she was running a laundry business.
In addition to that, my neighbour has some children. She is kept pretty busy with those children. She has to make sure they get up in the morning in time to get to school. She makes sure they get fed, clothed and off to school. She has to be there when they come home for lunch and has to get them off to school again after lunch. She supervises their play and their homework and she engages in a little child psychology as well. I venture to say, Madam Speaker, that if she were doing this with other people's children, you and I would probably say that she was running a daycare centre.
My neighbour usually ends up dealing with crises around the home every day of the week. Sometimes she has to deal with a flooded drain, sometimes light bulbs go out. Sometimes her appliances go on the fritz and she has to make sure that they get repaired. If she were dealing with these things in someone else's home, you and I, Madam Speaker, would probably say that she was running a repair business, and because she has to call in other tradesmen, we might even call her a general contractor.
She does other things as well. She cuts the grass and hedges, applies fertilizer and shovels snow. If she were doing those things outside her own home, we would call her a gardener or a handyman.
In addition to all of those things, she is a community volunteer. When her neighbours are away, she looks after their homes and pets. If her neighbours are sick, she brings food for them. She is the person around our neighbourhood who collects for charities. She is the person who volunteers to help out. She is one of those people upon whom all of us depend on an unpaid basis to make our society continue to go around.
Who is this person? Some people call her a housewife. My wife would call her a household engineer. Other people would call her a homemaker. She is one of the hardest working people I know. Even though she works as hard as other workers, for some reason or another she is not entitled to a Canada pension. If she were divorced or separated, she might be entitled at some stage to the Canada pension credits of her spouse or former spouse. If she outlives her husband, she might be entitled to some of his Canada pension. However, she is not entitled to a Canada Pension Plan of her own.
Although our Party has promised her a Canada Pension Plan, a homemakers Canada Pension Plan, for some strange reason we have not yet delivered. I think it is time that we deliver. I hope the Minister will tell us tonight that the Government will be delivering very soon on a homemakers Canada pension. I also hope he will tell us the exact date when my neighbour and all other homemakers across the country can expect to get a homemakers pension.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, may I say at the outset that it is a pleasure to see you gracing this Chamber and the chair. It is a pleasure to make my intervention this evening under your guidance.
October 20, 1986

The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has put forward a very compelling case for the contribution of a homemaker in Canada. The innovative way in which he brought the matter to the attention of the House is to be commended. I must point out to him and to all Hon. Members that the Government has moved very dramatically on pension reform. It has brought about changes, for instance, in the PBSA. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brought about changes in the last Budget regarding RRSPs. Also I am pleased to be associated with the changes to the Canada Pension Plan which will come into effect on January 1, 1987. It is an historic agreement.
It contains a number of changes, but in particular there is one regarding homemakers to whom the Hon. Member for York East referred. If there be a divorce or separation, a homemaker could possibly get some of the pension credits at the time of divorce. I think it is a good change.
A second one, which he possibly did not have time to mention, concerns Canada Pension Plan credits earned during marriage. They will be split between spouses at retirement if one of the spouses so requests. That is a second aspect in terms of homemakers who have not been in the paid labour force having a pension account of her own. In most cases it is "her own" as we know.
As well, CPP survivor benefits will no longer be withdrawn from widows or widowers who remarry, and benefits will be restored to those who lost them in the past. That affects approximately 35,000 people, most of whom are homemakers. On balance, some changes for homemakers have already been brought forward by the Government. I am sure the Hon. Member for York East not only recognizes that fact but applauds it.
Dealing with his specific question in respect of homemakers, a task force has been set up. It has already met six times, starting last July. It has been given one year in which to put forward a proposal for homemakers. As the Hon. Member knows, there is a need for provincial co-operation. However, I can tell him that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has made statements relevant to homemakers. It remains an issue for him which he would like to see completed in this mandate. I can only reiterate his words that that is the approach we have taken. That is the reason for the task force, the time schedule, and work plan. I thank the Hon. Member for his representation.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL'S BUDGET (B) NUMBER OF COUNCIL'S EMPLOYEES
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I see the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) is here to answer some of the questions which I asked several days ago. It is unusual for a Minister to be here, but obviously he realizes that the information he is giving to the people of Canada with regard to the Government's science policy has not been accepted.
Adjournment Debate
On October 9, I asked the Minister of State for Science and Technology two questions. First, how can the cuts to NRC research of $26 million be reconciled with the commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to double research and development in Canada? Second, can the Government guarantee that the 3,100 jobs at the National Research Council that now exist will exist at the end of next year? Since that time a good deal of information has come to light both about the Government's policy of rationalizing research and about the cuts being implemented at the NRC.
First, on the matter of research commitments, it is obvious that we can no longer assume that the target to double research and development in Canada promised by the Conservatives when they were in opposition exists. In the Throne Speech debate on October 8, the Minister of State for Science and Technology said, as reported at page 202 of Hansard:
With regard to a target, where we ought to be in terms of the Gross National Product, I chose to ask the Science Council to help me establish realistic funding targets by examining each sector of our industry and by comparing what they are doing in terms of science and technology with what their competitors are doing in other parts of the world.
Why does the Minister have to ask that question, Madam Speaker? We know that Canada's expenditures for research and development are about 1.5 per cent of the Gross National Product and other countries are spending twice as much. The Minister is asking a question the answer to which he should know.
Can the Minister give us an indication that a doubling of the Canadian research and development effort is still a target and a priority of his Government, and, if so, when will this target of 2.5 per cent of GNP be met? After all, it was promised for the first year of this Government's life. In dealing with this issue, the Government must realize that its credibility is at stake.
A host of articles and editorials appearing in all major newspapers of Canada make it clear that the writers assume the Government has dropped the objective of 2.5 per cent of GNP for scientific research and development as being unrealistic. Surely that is the issue in a nutshell.
The Throne Speech makes sweeping commitments to research and development and then these commitments are undercut by actions of the Government. The Government goes on to say how great research and development investments are being made with the universities and the granting councils, but when you look at the billion dollar price tag the Minister is talking about, you see there is very little, if any, new money available. What new money will be available by the Government is contingent on private sector participation, participation which has never been there up to now and is not likely to be there in the next year or two.
Let us look at the whole question of the lay-offs at the NRC. This is what we have learned. A list now exists at NRC of 150 persons whose jobs no longer exist. This number will grow to 200 shortly. These persons have been told that only 40 to 80 jobs in the space program will be open to them and there will

October 20, 1986
Adjournment Debate
be none in biotechnology. The options for many of these people are really quite unpalatable. They involve giving up a life's work in areas where they are recognized experts internationally or leaving the NRC and, in many cases, Canada to find equivalent work. What are the implications of this kind of decision making by the Government?
Research teams that are broken up are lost for perhaps a generation or longer. Those left behind have the job of picking up the pieces, trying to refashion research programs and units into coherent programs. The morale of staff is already much lower and the administration must try and sort out the chaos these cuts have precipitated. The Minister says the morale decline is our fault. Let him talk to people at the NRC and he will find out who they blame. People at the NRC are asking, with reason, if the Government is out to eliminate the NRC. This kind of procedure means a much less efficient research effort, again the exact opposite result the Minister says he wishes to have.
The Minister said that the work Dr. Polanyi did for which he got the Nobel prize was done at the University of Toronto. Of course it was. Elowever, Dr. Polanyi came to Canada to work at the NRC. If the NRC was in the condition then that it is in today as a result of this Minister and his Government, the future Dr. Polanyis would stay away from the NRC and this country.
We say the Government should rescind those cuts. The Minister should at least let the committee dealing with science and technology meet immediately to hear from people at the NRC, and scientists in the community, and see what they really believe about what is going on regarding scientific research and development.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond briefly to the Hon. Member's inquiry because I very much share his concern for the future well-being and effectiveness of the NRC and the science community in general.
The combined budget of the NRC, roughly $400 million, is a fraction of the total expenditure by this Government on research and development and science-related activity. That amounts to roughly $4.2 billion. However, the NRC remains Canada's lead agency for scientific research. As the Hon. Member has indicated, there are a number of Departments and agencies now engaged in all kinds of fundamental and applied research. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, as well as our resource Departments dealing with forestry, agriculture and mining, as well as the Department of Communications, have major research facilities. Of course, much of the research affected by these reallocations is now done in universities.
Unlike the way it used to be before World War II and immediately after, a lot of the fundamental research is done in universities. This is where it ought to be because scientists have
the responsibility of teaching our young people. That is one of the great priorities of our nation today. We have to develop the highly-qualified personnel we will need in the next century. That is why we introduced a program which will deliver to the universities $1 billion in additional funds for research over a five-year period. Yes, it does have to be matched by the private sector but, again, it is a critical priority for us to make sure that the research is done and the results are quickly applied and diffused.
There are linkages between the universities and the private sector and certainly the government laboratories and the private sector. The private sector is assuming more and more of its responsibility to do its own research in science-related activities. That is why we brought in such innovative tax measures. Some $500 million this year alone will be spent through tax incentives to encourage the private sector to do more of its research. As well, we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in so-called subagreements with the provinces to channel scarce public resources through the provinces to the private sector for quick diffusion.
We live in a changing world. We are on the threshold of the dawning of a new age. All of us have to adjust to that. All of us have to recognize new priorities. Let me just identify three priorities which have come out of this painful process of consultation in which I have involved myself over the last two years. First there is highly-qualified personnel teaching our young people in the R and D and science-related effort we are making. Then we have the development of strategic technology. Then of course we have space, which will be the single largest repository of new knowledge and new technology.
There are some cuts in the NRC, but they will be offset immediately because they do not come into effect until the next fiscal year. They will be offset by the new tasks which have been assigned to the NRC. There will be 250 people in the biotechnology centre in Montreal. My friend says there is no new money. Eight hundred million dollars is being spent on space and the NRC will play a lead role in that.
I am hoping that the Hon. Member will help me to maintain and build on this great institution and to restore the morale that he and some of his colleagues have been attempting to destroy.


MULTICULTURALISM-FUNDING OF TORONTO ORGANIZATIONS (B) GOVERNMENT POLICY
Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, congratulations on your appointment to the chair. I would like to refer to questions which I asked both the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie), responsible for multiculturalism and the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) during the last week. There is a crisis in multiculturalism as it affects this Conservative, Tory-blue Government. It emanates largely from the two reports which I tabled in the House. One of these reports was from a Tory group consisting of Members of
October 20, 1986

Parliament and Senators from Toronto who suggested that the programs of immigration and multiculturalism should be manipulated to the advantage and political benefit of the Conservative Party of Canada. The report reads:
It was stressed that there should be nothing arbitrary about funding cuts or increases; Liberal funding patterns sould be disposed of-
-as if they exist-
-and a politically-intelligent PC pattern take their place. This may be accomplished by a gradual process of funding cuts and reallocations.
In very basic English, the Conservative Members and Senators from Toronto are saying that if the organization is Conservative, it will receive funding, but if it does not happen to share the philosophical bent of the Conservative Party of Canada, it will not receive funding. That is a shame. It is immoral, not only to think that, but to document it and to send it to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of the country.
The second report to which I refer was written by one Peter McCreath, the Vice-Chairman of the Canadian Multiculturalism Advisory Council, a body consisting of 60 men and women appointed to advise the Government on multiculturalism policies which is funded to the extent of $350,000. Of the Council and its members, Mr. McCreath said:
They are all committed supporters of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the Government of the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism-
He goes on to say:
Furthermore, our voluntary commitment to the Government, and our wish to see it survive beyond the next general election, together, give us the luxury of being able to assess the situation and present our recommendation solely in the context of what we truly believe is in the best interests of-the Government of the day.
He continues:
Whatever weakness may be inherent in any recommendations to Government from the CMC, they at least reflect informed advice and opinion from a selection of the Government's principal supporters from across Canada.
I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that both reports are repugnant. Both reports are trying to manipulate immigration and multiculturalism structures which are in place to serve the ethnocultural community, which is a special interest group in this society, as are the farmers, fishermen, businessmen, labour unions, students and young people. These programs have a specific use and are not to be used as part of a Tory chess game in which the pawns are moved around like chattels.
The Prime Minister refused to get up in his place and defend the very essence of multiculturalism. He and his wife go across the country making great speeches and grand pronouncements about how rich Canada is with respect to its multicultural plurality. However, when it comes down to a request for him to stand up and defend the integrity of multiculturalism, the intregity of the role of a Canadian multiculturalism council, and to protect the integrity of ministerial permits rather than be abused for political gain, he refuses to do so.
Adjournment Debate
The Secretary of State responsible for multiculturalism, treats it as a joke and says that he has not seen nor read the report. I suggest that it is high time that the Minister responsible for multiculturalism, who is a decent man and very well respected as a politician and former Mayor of Toronto, come clean and begin to defend the interests of his Department and his national constituency which he represents as the Minister responsible for multiculturalism, rather than defending and hiding behind the interests of members of the Conservative Party, be they elected or appointed.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism (Mr. Della Noce), with his Italian background, I believe shares some of the sensitivity of some of these groups in a very real and profound way. I look forward to him rising in his place because I asked his boss, the Minister responsible for multiculturalism, to refute the Tory report, to distance himself from it and say very categorically that it does not reflect the programs of the Government. He has failed to do that.
As far as the McCreath Report is concerned, I asked two specific questions. First, will he ask for the resignation of Mr. McCreath immediately because he can no longer serve in a non-partisan, effective way? Second, will he conduct a full review into the affairs and budget of this council so that the motives that have been impugned by Mr. McCreath will be eliminated and its integrity and credibility restored so it may do the honourable job for which it was designed? I look forward to answers to these questions from the Parliamentary Secretary or we will have to go to the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism to ask for a full investigation.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):: Madam Speaker, this being the first time I have the pleasure of taking the floor while you occupy the Chair, I also want to congratulate you on your appointment.
Madam Speaker, I should like to respond to my colleague from York West (Mr. Marchi). I know he is dedicated to multiculturalism since we both share similar views, but I must tell you that our colleague the Hon. Member for York West is usually long on rhetoric and that oftentimes he has a tendency to blur the facts, especially with respect to the Toronto region. It is unfortunate that my colleague does not try to see things from a positive angle. He usually takes a rather negative approach. And I do not agree at all with what he said. During the little time I am allowed, not being as lucky as the Hon. Member who is allowed twice as much, I would like to start with the grants issue where I think the Hon. Member is not quite correct when he says that multicultural grants are strictly the preserve of Conservative Party members. Well, Madam Speaker, I can inform my hon. friend that the exact opposite happened when the Liberal Party was in power. And I

October 20, 1986
Adjournment Debate
could tell him about the Montreal area where I come from. He may not know about the situation there, but we are going to make sure he does, because-


Sergio Marchi: Prove it!


Vincent Della Noce: Yes, I'm going to, right now. It was during my election campaign. When I went to speak to the Italian community, I said all Italians would be treated the same. Not just the Liberal Italians, as when his party was in power. And I want to use this example, because this year, I divided the small piece we got for multiculturalism fairly and squarely, and I can assure you that in addition to the Italian-Canadian Association and Congress, to which you would have given the whole pie, I decided to give a fair share as well to a group with Conservative leanings which was receiving a grant for the first time. The Ethnic Congress of Laval and the Sons of Italy have been around for 20 years, and they never got a cent from the Liberal Party because they had Conservative leanings. Actually, one person was Conservative and the 62 others were
Liberals. He should talk! He wants to give us a lesson in moral behaviour. I can give my hon. friend all the proof he wants.
When the Hon. Members says that multiculturalism is on the way out, I can inform him that multiculturalism has progressed by leaps and bounds since the Conservative Party came to power.
If anyone is declining here, it's the Liberal Party, not multiculturalism which now has a brilliant future, no thanks to the Liberal Party. I can tell you that everybody, all the different ethnic groups are treated the same, no matter how much money is available. I can guarantee, Madam Speaker, that multiculturalism has a brilliant future in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member's time has expired.
A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.

October 20, 1986

[Stage Direction]
{See p. 495)
MEMBERSHIP OF CABINET COMMITTEES*
Communications
Chairman	The Hon. D. Mazankowski	
Vice-Chairman	The Hon. M. Masse	
Members	The Hon. R. Hnatyshyn The Hon. P. Beatty	
	The Hon. H. Andre The Hon. T. McMillan	
	The Hon. P. Carney The Hon. B. Bouchard	Legislation and House Planning
	The Hon. B. McDougall The Hon. M. Vezina	Chairman
	The Hon. J. Charest	Vice-Chairman
		Members
Economic and Regional Development		
Chairman	The Hon. R. de Cotret	
Vice-Chairman	The Hon. J. Crosbie	
Members	The Hon. F. MacDonald The Hon. J. Wise The Hon. H. Andre The Hon. T. Siddon The Hon. C. Mayer	Priorities and Planning
	The Hon. W. McKnight The Hon. T. McMillan	Chairman
	The Hon. P. Carney The Hon. A. Bissonnette	Vice-Chairman
	The Hon. B. Bouchard The Hon. M. Cote The Hon. M. Masse The Hon. B. McDougall The Hon. G. Merrithew The Hon. M. Vezina The Hon. S. Mclnnes The Hon. F. Oberle The Hon. L. Murray The Hon. P. Dick The Hon. P. Cadieux The Hon. B. Valcourt	Members
Foreign and Defence Policy		
Chairman	The Right Hon. J. Clark	Security and IntelligenceVice-Chairman	The Hon. P. Beatty	ChairmanMembers	The Hon. F. MacDonald	Vice-ChairmanThe Hon. J. Crosbie The Hon. J. Wise The Hon. T. Siddon The Hon. T. McMillan	Members*N.B. The Deputy Prime Minister,	Minister of Finance and President of the	Treasury Board are ex officio members of the Cabinet Committees on Economic and Regional Development, Foreign and Defence Policy, and Social Development. All Ministers are free to attend meetings of these Committees.	
The Hon. P. Carney The Hon. M. Cote The Hon. J. Kelleher The Hon. M. Masse The Hon. F. Oberle The Hon. P. Dick The Hon. M. Landry The Hon. G. Weiner
The Hon. D. Mazankowski
The Hon. L. Murray
The Hon. G. Hees The Hon. R. La Salle The Hon. E. MacKay The Hon. R. Hnatyshyn The Hon. D. Crombie The Hon. J. Kelleher The Hon. P. Dick The Hon. J. Charest
The Right Hon. B. Mulroney
The Hon. D. Mazankowski
The Right Hon. J. Clark The Hon. F. MacDonald The Hon. J. Crosbie The Hon. E. MacKay The Hon. J. Epp The Hon. R. Hnatyshyn The Hon. D. Crombie The Hon. R. de Cotret The Hon. P Beatty The Hon. M. Wilson The Hon. P. Carney The Hon. B. Bouchard The Hon. M. Cote The Hon. M. Masse
The Right Hon. B. Mulroney
The Hon. D. Mazankowski
The Right Hon. J. Clark The Hon. R. Hnatyshyn The Hon. R. de Cotret The Hon. P. Beatty The Hon. M. Wilson The Hon. P. Carney The Hon. B. Bouchard The Hon. J. Kelleher
[Stage Direction]
October 20, 1986
Social Development Chairman			The Hon. R. Hnatyshyn The Hon. M. Wilson
	The Hon. J. Epp		The Hon. H. Andre The Hon. M. Cote
Vice-Chairman			
	The Hon. R. Hnatyshyn		The Hon. M. Masse The Hon. P. Cadieux
Members			
	The Hon. G. Hees The Hon. F. MacDonald The Hon. D. Crombie The Hon. O. Jelinek The Hon. W. McKnight The Hon. T. McMillan	Federal-Provincial Relations	The Hon. T. Hockin The Hon. B. Valcourt
			
			
			
			
			
The Hon. B. Bouchard The Hon. J. Kelleher	Chairman	The Hon. L. MurrayThe Hon. B. McDougall	Vice-Chairman	The Hon. R. HnatyshynThe Hon. S. Mclnnes The Hon. L. Murray	Members	The Hon. J. CrosbieThe Hon. P. Cadieux	The Hon. J. EppThe Hon. J. Charest	The Hon. B. BouchardThe Hon. M. Landry	The Hon. M. MasseThe Hon. G. Weiner	The Hon. J. Charest The Hon. G. WeinerSpecial Committee of Council	Priorities and Planning Sub-Committee on	Chairman	The Hon. D. Mazankowski	Trade	Vice-Chairman	The Hon. R. Hnatyshyn	Chairman	The Hon. P. CarneyMembers	Vice-Chairmen	The Right Hon. J. ClarkThe Hon. E. MacKay	The Hon. M. WilsonThe Hon. O. Jelinek The Hon. T. Siddon	The Hon. M. CoteThe Hon. C. Mayer	Members	The Hon. F. MacDonaldThe Hon. A. Bissonnette	The Hon. J. CrosbieThe Hon. B. McDougall	The Hon. J. WiseThe Hon. G. Merrithew	The Hon. R. de CotretThe Hon. M. Vezina	The Hon. H. AndreThe Hon. L. Murray	The Hon. T. SiddonThe Hon. P. Dick	The Hon. B. BouchardThe Hon. T. Hockin	The Hon. J. KelleherThe Hon. M. Landry	The Hon. M. MasseThe Hon. B. McDougall The Hon. G. MerrithewTreasury Board	The Hon. L. Murray The Hon. P. CadieuxChairman	The Hon. R. de Cotret	Vice-Chairman	The Hon. M. Wilson	Ministerial Committee on the Development of the Montreal Region	Members	The Hon. B. McDougall The Hon. M. Vezina	Chairman	The Hon. R. de CotretThe Hon. S. Mclnnes The Hon. F. Oberle	Vice-Chairman	The Hon. M. MasseAlternates	Members	The Hon. R. La Salle The Hon. D. MazankowskiThe Hon. C. Mayer	The Hon. A. BissonnetteThe Hon. T. McMillan	The Hon. B. BouchardThe Hon. A. Bissonnette	The Hon. L. MurrayThe Hon. T. Hockin	The Hon. P. CadieuxThe Hon. B. Valcourt	The Hon. M. LandryThe Hon. G. Weiner	The Hon. G. Weiner
Privatization, Regulatory Affairs and Operations
Chairman
Vice-Chairman
Members
The Hon. B. McDougall The Hon. J. Crosbie The Hon. E. MacKay

[Stage Direction]
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advise:

October 20, 1986
[Stage Direction]
1.	that in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Prime Minister or in the event of his being unable to perform the functions of his office
(a)	the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Donald Frank Mazankowski, or
(b)	in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Donald Frank Mazankowski or in the event of his being unable to perform the functions of the office of the Prime Minister, the next Minister named in order of priority in the list of Ministers set out in Schedule A who is in the National Capital Region and is able to perform the functions of the Office of the Prime Minister,
be authorized to act for the Prime Minister;
2.	that in the absence from the National Capital Region of a Minister whose name is set out in Column II of an item of the Schedule B, or in the event of that Minister being unable to perform the functions of his Office, the Minister whose name is set out in Column III of the item be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column I of the item;
3.	that in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Ministers named in Columns II and III of an item of the Schedule B, or in the event of both of those Ministers being unable to perform the functions of their Office, the Minister whose name is set out in Column IV of the item be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column I of the item;
4.	that in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Ministers named in Columns II, III and IV of an item of the Schedule B, or in the event of all those Ministers being unable to perform the functions of their Office,
(a)	the Prime Minister,
(b)	in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Prime Minister or in the event of the Prime Minister being unable to perform the functions of his Office, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Donald Frank Mazankowski, or
(c)	in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Frank Mazankowski, or in the event of both of them being unable to perform the functions of their Office, the next Minister named in order of priority in the list of Ministers set out in Schedule A, who is in Ottawa and is able to perform the said functions,
be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column I of that item;
5.	that, where an Office set out in Column I of an item of Schedule B is vacant, the Minister whose name is set out in Column III of that item be authorized to act in the Office of the Minister whose Office is set out in Column I of that item;
6.	that, where an Office set out in Column I of an item of Schedule B is vacant, in the absence from the National
Capital Region of the Minister whose name is set out in Column III of that item, or in the event of that Minister being unable to perform the functions of the Office set out in Column I of that item, the Minister whose name is set out in Column IV of that item be authorized to act in the Office of the Minister whose Office is set out in Column I of that item; and
7.	that, where an Office set out in Column I of an item of Schedule B is vacant, in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Ministers named in Columns III and IV of that Schedule, or in the event of those Ministers being unable to perform the functions of their Office,
(a)	the Prime Minister,
(b)	in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Prime Minister or in the event of the Prime Minister being unable to perform the functions of his Office, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Donald Frank Mazankowski, or
(c)	in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Donald Frank Mazankowski, or in the event of both of them being unable to perform the functions of their Office, the next Minister named in order of priority in the list of Ministers set out in Schedule A, who is in Ottawa and is able to perform the said functions,
be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column I of that item.

[Stage Direction]
The Hon. D. Mazankowski The Right Hon. J. Clark The Hon. F. MacDonald The Hon. J. Crosbie The Hon. E. MacKay The Hon. J. Epp The Hon. R. Hnatyshyn The Hon. R. de Cotret The Hon. M. Wilson The Hon. P. Carney The Hon. M. Masse The Hon. M. Cote The Hon. G. Hees The Hon. R. La Salle The Hon. J. Wise The Hon. D. Crombie The Hon. H. Beatty
[Stage Direction]
October 20, 1986
The Hon. H. Andre The Hon. O. Jelinek The Hon. T. Siddon The Hon. C. Mayer The Hon. W. McKnight The Hon. T. McMillan The Hon. A. Bissonnette The Hon. B. Bouchard The Hon. J. Kelleher The Hon. B. McDougall The Hon. G. Merrithew
The Hon. M. Vezina The Hon. S. Mclnnes The Hon. F. Oberle The Hon. P. Dick The Hon. P. Cadieux The Hon. J. Charest The Hon. T. Hockin The Hon. M. Landry The Hon. B. Valcourt The Hon. G. Weiner
October 20, 1986

[Stage Direction]
Column I	Column II	Column III	Column IVOffice	Name	Acting Minister	Second Acting Minister1.	Minister of Agriculture	J. Wise	C. Mayer	G. Merrithew2.	Minister of Communications	F. MacDonald	D. Crombie	P. Cadieux3.	Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs	H. Andre	W. McKnight	M. Cote4.	Minister of Employment and Immigration	B. Bouchard	G. Weiner	J. Charest5.	Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources	M. Masse	G. Merrithew	P. Carney6.	Minister of the Environment	T. McMillan	T. Siddon	J. Wise7.	Secretary of State for External Affairs	C. Clark	P. Carney	M. Landry8.	Minister of Finance	M. Wilson	T. Hockin	R. de Cotret9.	Minister of Fisheries and Oceans	T. Siddon	J. Crosbie	T. McMillan10.	Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development	W. McKnight	J. Epp	P. Carney11.	Minister of Justice and Attorney General	R. Hnatyshyn	J. Kelleher	J. Crosbie12.	Minister of Labour	P. Cadieux	B. Bouchard	W. McKnight13.	Minister of National Defence	H. Beatty	P. Dick	H. Andre14.	Associate Minister of National Defence	P. Dick	H. Beatty	H. Andre15.	Minister of National Health and Welfare	J. Epp	O. Jelinek	D. Crombie16.	Minister of National Revenue	E. MacKay	B. McDougall	T. Hockin17.	President of the Privy Council	D. Mazankowski	R. Hnatyshyn	E. MacKay18.	Minister of Public Works	S. Mclnnes	M. Vezina	W. McKnight19.	Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion	M. Cote	B. Valcourt	A. Bissonnette20.	Minister of State for Science and Technology	F. Oberle	M. Cote	M. Masse21.	Secretary of State of Canada	D. Crombie	F. MacDonald	B. Bouchard22.	Solicitor General of Canada	J. Kelleher	R. Hnatyshyn	H. Beatty23.	Minister of Supply and Services	M. Vezina	S. Mclnnes	T. McMillan24.	Minister of Transport	J. Crosbie	A. Bissonnette	D. Mazankowski25.	President of the Treasury Board	R. de Cotret	M. Wilson	B. McDougall26.	Minister of Veterans Affairs	G. Hees	H. Beatty	R. La Salle27.	Minister of State (Privatization)	B. McDougall	R. de Cotret	M. Wilson
Tuesday, October 21, 1986