1987-04-14

["I thank the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister. It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock p.m.\nAt 1 p.m. the House took recess."]
Mr. Speaker:: I indicated to the House yesterday that I would be prepared to rule at eleven o'clock this morning on the matter which was raised yesterday by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) who moved under Tabling of Documents that the House should now proceed to Motions. It was evident that the effect of this motion, if carried, would be to supersede all intervening routine proceedings. I invited argument on the admissibility of the motion and reserved my decision.

The contributions made by all Hon. Members who participated in the discussion were very forthright. A number of valid points were raised and the Chair appreciated the force of the arguments which were made.

The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) referred to my ruling of November 24, 1986, in which I stated that a motion having the effect of superseding a number of items under Routine Proceedings would be inappropriate and that we should proceed from item to item. In reserving my decision yesterday, I was very conscious that I had made that ruling and that the motion moved yesterday by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council was without precedent. The two motions are indeed similar but the circumstances are considerably different. However, the concerns of the Chair remain the same.
The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) suggested that the only motion which could be moved during Routine Proceedings was one to proceed to the Orders of the Day. However much I may be inclined to agree with him, the fact remains that we have a number of precedents to the contrary. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) stated:
If the consideration of Routine Proceedings is to be considered a sacred process, item by item, then we will have to go back and re-examine the dilatory motions and the procedural tactics, as well as the procedural acceptability of some of these dilatory motions.
The Chair fully agrees with this statement. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister also stated that there surely has to be some balance, and with this comment the Chair also agrees.

The Hon. Member for Windsor West claimed that a superseding motion can only be accepted when there is something before the House to be superseded. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) reinforced this point when he said that the precondition for a superseding motion is that there be debate on the floor of the House. It would be difficult to quarrel with the logic of these arguments and I believe they strengthen the case for a total review of the admissibility of dilatory motions during Routine Proceedings.
A number of Hon. Members dealt with the importance of protecting the fundamental rights members have under Routine Proceedings. However, the fundamental rights of members can be violated by the tactics of obstruction as well as by the unreasonable restriction of debate. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) went to the heart of the matter when he stated that the procedural tactics which the House has witnessed have little to do with the content of Bill C-22. As I made clear yesterday, the Chair is not the least bit interested in the content of the Bill. The Chair is, however, gravely concerned with the effect of these tactics by either side on the well-being of the House of Commons.
The House has had before it for almost six months a highly controversial piece of legislation, namely, Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act. This is not the first time the House has had to deal with controversial legislation, neither will it be the last. It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view. Sooner or later every issue must be decided and the decision will be taken by a majority. Rules of procedure protect both the minority and the majority. They are designed to allow the full expression of views on both sides of an issue. They provide the Opposition with a means to delay a decision. They also provide the majority with a means of limiting debate in order to arrive at a decision. This is the kind of balance essential to the procedure

April 14, 1987
Procedure-Speaker's Ruling
of a democratic assembly. Our rules were certainly never designed to permit the total frustration of one side or the other, the total stagnation of debate, or the total paralysis of the system.

Bill C-22 was first introduced on November 6, 1986 and given first reading on November 7, following a division in both cases. The strong opposition to the Bill led to the use of procedural tactics for purposes of delay to which the Government responded with procedural tactics of their own. Seven divisions took place prior to the introduction of the Bill, most of them resulting from the moving of dilatory motions during Routine Proceedings. Fourteen more divisions, most of them again resulting from the moving of dilatory motions during Routine Proceedings, took place before the Bill obtained a second reading on December 8, 1986.
The Bill was referred to a Legislative Committee which reported it back to the House with amendments on March 16, 1987, after 24 meetings and 82 hours of debate as the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out. Numerous amendments were proposed at the report stage to which four days have so far been devoted.
On April 7, the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) gave notice of an allocation of time motion in terms of S. O. 117. This Standing Order was adopted by the House in 1968 and has been regularly used ever since. It is a legitimate procedure provided it is not abused and it has been employed by governments both Liberal and Progressive Conservative without any procedural challenge to their right to do so.

As the House knows, dilatory tactics prevented the House from reaching motions on two successive days last week. On the third day, Friday, the Government undertook not to proceed with its allocation of time motion respecting Bill C-22 and by mutual agreement Routine Proceedings did not take place. The tactical battle has unfortunately become a substitute for debate. Opponents of the Bill have used various devices to delay the passage of this Bill at its successive stages. The Government has countered by using superseding motions having the opposite effect. To the viewing public, these tactics must be totally meaningless. Our procedures are being used for purposes for which they were never originally intended, and the public could be pardoned for believing that our rules have no logical basis at all.
In the kind of situation which faces us, I have no doubt that negotiation provides the only route to a satisfactory solution. However, when negotiations fail there comes a time when the Chair is obliged to consider what its own responsibilities are. One of the functions of the Speaker is to ensure that the House is able to transact its business. This does not mean that the Chair plays any part in assisting the Government in the management of its business agenda. I want to repeat that; this
does not mean that the Chair plays any part in assisting the Government in the management of its business agenda.
Considerable debate has already taken place on this Bill. It cannot be argued that the opportunities for airing objections to it have been unreasonably restricted. There has been considerable disruption of Routine Proceedings which, as I have said, has given me very grave concern.
I might point out that I invited Hon. Members last Wednesday, if they chose at that time, to give any advice they might have for the Speaker.
Routine Proceedings are an essential part of House business and if they are not protected the interests of the House and the public it serves are likely to suffer severely.
The moving of dilatory motions during Routine Proceedings is a very recent practice which originated in the early 1980s. I share the doubts expressed by some Hon. Members yesterday as to its procedural validity. It is a practice which can supersede the presentation of petitions, delay indefinitely the introduction of Bills-those of Private Members as well as those of the Government-and completely block debate on motions for concurrence in committee reports as well as on allocation of time motions. These arguments were made very effectively by Hon. Members in the course of their contributions yesterday. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) argued very strongly that during Routine Proceedings a member should be recognized only for the purpose contemplated by the particular rubric under which he or she rises. Since Routine Proceedings have been moved to the morning on three days of the week, these problems have been aggravated. However, this is a broader issue which will need to be addressed at another time.
The immediate question which faces the Chair is whether the motion moved yesterday by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council is acceptable or not. I recognize that if we are to adhere rigidly to recent precedents, including my own ruling of November 24, 1986, the motion would have to be ruled unacceptable. The House is nevertheless facing an impasse which it has been unable to resolve for itself. There comes a time when the Chair has to face its responsibilities. When circumstances change and the Rules of Procedure provide no solution, the Chair must fall back on its discretion in the interests of the House and all its members. This may require the Chair to modify or vary an earlier decision.
In using my discretion, I believe I am supported by the centuries old tradition which attaches to the Office of Speaker. It was Speaker Lenthall who, in the reign of Charles I, declared in the presence of the King that the Speaker's first duty lay to the House of Commons. It was Speaker Brand who in 1881 ended the paralysis of the British House by imposing closure of his own initiative.
April 14, 1987

An eminent parliamentary authority, Josef Redlich, has written that it is the duty of the Speaker to serve the majority and the minority:
-by maintaining the rules and the usage of centuries, and by taking care that both majority and minority are not impeded in the use of the forces and the weapons which the order of business provides for strong and weak. Protection of a majority against obstruction and protection of a minority against oppression are both alike functions of the Chair.
When interpreting the rules of procedure, the Speaker must take account not only of their letter but of their spirit and be guided by the most basic rule of all, that of common sense.
The practice of using dilatory motions as a means of obstruction is undoubtedly sanctioned by our parliamentary practice. However, many parliamentary jurisdictions in the Commonwealth place restrictions on the extent to which they can be used. For example, in the British House of Commons the Speaker has the power to refuse a dilatory motion if he believes it to be an abuse of the rules of the House. By the same token, he is empowered to allow them if he believes them to be justified.
I repeat my conviction that the entire question of the use of dilatory motions during Routine Proceedings needs to be examined and that no procedures should be sanctioned which permit the House to be brought to a total standstill for an indefinite period. Division bells are no substitute for debate.

This Parliament has been a Parliament of reform. We have seen important changes implemented designed to facilitate the flow of business, increase the powers of committees, improve the opportunities of Private Members, and increase the effectiveness of our procedures.
The decision of the House to change the manner of electing its Speaker is indicative of the fact that the House of Commons has matured. Has it matured enough to confer upon its Presiding Officer the discretionary powers necessary to control abuse and resolve deadlocks that the British House of Commons gave its own Speaker over a century ago? I believe it has. [English]
Having given serious consideration to all of the arguments that have been made, I have decided that I can best serve the interests of the House by allowing the motion moved yesterday by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. In doing so, I make it clear that this will not be regarded as a precedent for all time, and that in other circumstances the Chair might well disallow such a motion.
I hope all Hon. Members realize that the spirit of my decision has nothing to do with the content of Bill C-22. I am concerned only with the procedures of this House and the implications for the future of what we may do today. There are circumstances in which obstructive tactics can be an abuse of the rules of the House. Equally, notice of time allocation motions after only a few hours of debate at any stage of a Bill can also be an abuse. However, when such notice is given in the face of a lengthy report stage, after detailed consideration
Procedure-Speaker's Ruling
of a Bill has taken place during a long period of time in committee, I submit that this is a legitimate use of Standing Order 117. Both time allocation motions and dilatory motions are open to abuse. When such tactics are entered upon by either Government or Opposition the balance of democratic parliamentary government can be easily upset. The maintenance of that balance is a fundamental responsibility of the Speaker.
I wish to make it clear to all Hon. Members that if this ruling is resorted to as a precedent, the Chair will interpret it in the light of the prevailing circumstances with a view to maintaining that essential balance to which I have just referred.
I wish to make some additional comments. I have not enjoyed making this ruling. Nonetheless, that is the responsibility that, in the circumstances, Hon. Members have imposed upon me. I have accepted that responsibility with due regard to the traditions of this place which I have tried to adequately express in my ruling. The ruling which I have just made was made after intense consideration of not only our rules and our precedents but also with regard to as much common sense as I could bring to the present situation.
However, I want something to be clearly understood by all Hon. Members wherever they sit in this Chamber. I expect every Hon. Member to take my ruling in the spirit in which it is intended. It is simply this. In the absence of any clear direction according to the standing rules I have had to make a decision.
I want to address a particular concern that was made by some Hon. Members during argument on this important matter. Simply stated it is this. The result of my ruling might be that the right of Private Members to present their concerns under Routine Proceedings could be prevented and, if so, their rights as parliamentarians would be unfairly and wrongfully restricted or, indeed, extinguished. Let me answer that concern. If anyone on either side of the House tries to take what could be considered unfair advantage of my ruling, I serve clear notice that as long as I am Speaker I will not tolerate such a proposition. I have had to make a decision. It is a decision circumscribed by events. No one should presume for a moment that it ought to be used as justification for abuse of whatever form against or violence to the principles of fair play.
My ruling, admittedly, has left some discretion to the Speaker. Until there are some rule changes that help resolve the need for the Speaker to exercise, in the interests of the Chamber, this discretion as Speaker, I shall strive mightily to find an acceptable resolution of the disputes. I believe that the resolution of these inevitable and legitimate disputes should be on the basis of our traditions, our rules, our precedents, and something else as well. By this I mean what is essential to this House of Commons, that is, that well accepted but not always definable thing upon which our whole constitutional history is based. It is fair play and, perhaps I can add as I have already

April 14, 1987
Procedure-Speaker's Ruling
mentioned, common sense. I should immediately remark that common sense, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Nevertheless, there is a basic common sense that those of us who have to get elected understand only too well. It is, when all is said and done, the profound sense of what is appropriate under certain circumstances and which is acceptable to reasonable people.
I have tried to give Hon. Members an intellectually reasoned ruling. I have also tried to support it with a rationale that stands the test of common sense. I want to assure all Hon. Members that their Speaker will not be receptive to any abuse of either the intellectual or common sense basis of this ruling. I would hope that the difficulties of the Speaker in this situation will encourage Hon. Members to reconsider the present rules with a view to making changes which would secure the sanctity of Routine Proceedings and the legitimate interests of all Members of the House of Commons.
I want to thank all Hon. Members for their diligence and the sincerity with which they put their arguments. I hope that this ruling, while not satisfactory to all, will be accepted in the interests of this place.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is just for a matter of clarification. Am I to assume, then, that the motion that was put yesterday by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary will be considered at the appropriate time?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair and the Table have given some consideration to the point which the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) raises. The ruling is a ruling for future events. Yesterday was yesterday. The consequence of that is that the ruling is now made and it is not for the Chair to say on what occasion either side may wish to avail themselves of it. I have tried to clarify the position in the event that such a motion is made again.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I want to return to the point which I made to you yesterday and the day before with regard to the lapsing of motions. Your comments in response to the request of the Government House Leader indicate to me that you have lapsed the motion which was before the House.
I maintain that lapsing of the motion is out of order and unconstitutional. A question put to the House must be settled by vote. Although I disagree with the intent of the motion and do not think I would at any time like to sustain such a procedure, if indeed you have ruled that that motion has lapsed, I ask you what rule of this House, what Standing Order, you are using to lapse the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I have taken the position in this particular case that that motion was proposed but was never before the House. The motion was proposed and at that point I invited
argument as to whether or not it could even go before the House. That is the short answer to the very legitimate question which the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has raised. I hope that before the end of the day tomorrow I will be able to say more on this important matter which I accept as such.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, we, of course, accept and respect the decision which you have just made. We have always maintained, as we did during the bell-ringing incident a number of years ago, that the rights of Parliament to act must be maintained, otherwise there can be no parliamentary democracy. However, we are also concerned that your ruling is, in effect, a precedent if necessary but not necessarily a precedent. We will see an evolution of the role of the Speaker in this House as a result of this ruling.
The Speaker will now have to judge all the debate which takes place in the House and in committee and the actions of the Opposition and the Government every time he or she makes a ruling. I believe that means that the Speaker will be dragged into every controversial question which comes before the House of Commons. That may be a necessity, but I think it may drastically affect the role and the sense of the Speaker being independent.
I have the greatest respect for you, Mr. Speaker, but I am worried that in the future, when a majority government is able to install a Speaker of its choice after the campaigning which takes place for the role of Speaker, we may find that the Speaker no longer represents all Parties in the House and could become the effective tool and weapon of the Government. I believe that is a legitimate concern which all of us in this House should have.
As I said earlier, we do accept and respect your decision. However, I suggest that the House Leaders and the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedures study this ruling and ensure that there are clear guidelines for how we in the House use, and sometimes abuse, the rules, as well as clear guidelines to set out when the Speaker can use this new discretion.
I also think that in the face of this ruling we must have some way of ensuring that the legitimate concerns of the Government to move forward on its political agenda be balanced by the ability of the opposition Parties, especially when they have a small majority, as they do at this time, to ensure that instead of only having a number of meetings of committees we have real action, real presentation and real questioning at those meetings.
In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, you pointed out that there were a number of meetings of the committee which studied Bill C-22. However, we in the Opposition are concerned that those committees stacked witness after witness in the same hearing. Witnesses were allowed 45 minutes to make their presentation within which time any questions of Members of Parliament had to be asked and answered. That is impossible. Forty-five minutes is not enough time for a national group to present its
April 14, 1987

evidence on a major piece of legislation and for us to ask intelligent questions and receive intelligent answers.
With regard to the ruling just made, it is important that if the Speaker is going to judge the quantity of debate as well as the quality of debate the rights of minorities, citizens and groups which have come before parliamentary committees be protected. Statistics alone do not show the full picture. It is unfortunate, but it will be necessary for the Speaker to delve into the quality of what is happening in committee sessions. He will have to consider what actually takes place when each and every witness comes before a parliamentary committee on a controversial matter. Mr. Speaker, I wish you well.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. First of all, we on this side of the House wish to thank you for taking the time to give this matter thorough consideration and for giving us your ruling, which we accept as is, according to the Standing Orders. However, I would like to give you and all Members of this House our interpretation of the ruling you have just handed down.
We believe that although the Chair, in its lengthy summation, referred to the long hours spent debating Bill C-22, according to our interpretation, the Chair did not make its ruling on that basis, because when a procedural issue is raised in the House, the point is not how much time has been spent on debate but how to make a ruling that is balanced, that is satisfactory to all Members of this House and that protects them as well.
When certain debates become long and drawn out, it is a matter of discussion among members whether the debate is or is not too long, and the public may have its views on the subject as well, but I am sure that the Chair does not judge whether or not a debate has lasted too long.
The same applies to the time allocation measure the Government intends to use with respect to Bill C-22. Here again, I am sure the Chair does not judge whether, in this specific case, the use of time allocation is justified or whether or not the use of this measure has been untoward, since here again, it is a matter for the public to judge.
It may be a matter for debate between the Members of this House, but in any case, the rules for time allocation are clearly set forth in our Standing Orders and may be applied at any time. If they are used too often, it is up to the public to judge the Government's actions.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me and to the Members on our side of the House at least, that today's decision, on the basis of age-old precedents used by Speakers in the United Kingdom, has expanded the powers the Chair already had. All we expect the Chair to do is ensure that these powers will be used to give equal protection to all Members of this House. As members of an Opposition that is very much in the minority, we expect and hope that these powers will be used to protect the rights of the minority in a Parliament where the majority is very much so.
Procedure-Speaker's Ruling
[DOT] (U40)


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a few comments because I participated yesterday at your invitation to say a few words on the particular question.
1 gather from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that you have ruled that the situation could take place, that the motion moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) could stand, but that you did not want it to be a precedent. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you have made a judgment here about this particular issue. I think you have to be aware, for example, that when Bill C-22 went to the legislative committee, at the very first meeting a motion was put forward by government Members on the committee that the committee would sit five days a week, that it would meet three times a day, and that it would limit each witness to 45 minutes. They set a deadline by which time the consideration of Bill C-22 would be complete within the committee. I think you are aware of those things, Mr. Speaker. You have to be aware in making the decision.
This is why I think it is a dangerous situation where the Speaker involves himself in judging a particular Bill. While you said your ruling is not concerned with the merits of a Bill, in fact you have to be concerned with the merits of the Bill. You have to be concerned with what goes into why the Opposition is opposed to the Bill and the extent of that opposition within the House. It seems to me on the one hand that you do not want to get involved, but that on the other hand you have become involved.
I would humbly submit that in fact you have, by your ruling, picked a side. You have said that the Parliamentary Secretary's motion could stand. It is a move which has a lot of grave dangers down the road. It is unfortunate that we have moved this way, Mr. Speaker.
It seems to me that there was a previous ruling by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux that in fact that sort of motion could not stand. I think in this particular situation we have opened up a new can of worms, and it is most unfortunate that the ruling would lead to that.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, as the official critic for Consumer and Corporate Affairs who dealt with Bill C-22, and also as one who accepted your invitation yesterday to speak to the issue at hand, I want to say very briefly that from your decision it is my understanding-and with great respect, if I am incorrect, you will correct me-that this decision in no way is a precedent for future deliberations of the House.
You have certain powers as the Speaker of the House and at the present time you are exercising those powers. Far be it from me to question whether the exercising of that power is wrong or right. You have made your decision, and we must live with that particular decision.

April 14, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Jelinek
However, if I may, I was not aware of some of the events commented on by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) that took place at committee. My recollection is somewhat different, and I think the record should show that. There is no question but that the Government of the day wished to limit the time of witnesses to 45 minutes and wished to have these meetings over at a particular point in time. However, I suggest respectfully that the impasse on Bill C-22 may have been averted if members opposite, in particular the Minister responsible for Bill C-22, had the courage of their convictions and convened some deliberations with members opposite. However, that was not in the cards, not at all. It forced members of the Opposition, members of my Party-and I am not speaking for the New Democratic Party-to do things we would not necessarily want to do to impede good debate in committee and in the House of Commons.
You made a number of comments, Mr. Speaker. However, I say that there was one omission, and I just bring it to your attention. You talked about the committee, you talked about divisions, as did the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankow-ski), but you did not talk about the 47 amendments on the floor of the House of Commons which are germane to the substance of the Bill itself. That has to be given some consideration. Perhaps you have given that consideration, but perhaps you did not articulate it in the way in which I wanted it to be articulated.
I raise that point in terms of future deliberations with regard to Bill C-22 and where it will go in coming weeks and months. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, with great sincerity that the substance of the Bill is wrong-wrong. We in the Opposition are deathly against Bill C-22 as it now stands. Because of the insensitivities and the activities of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), you have been faced with a very difficult decision which we on this side of the House will respect and honour.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to abide by my request to close off comments on the ruling. I would invite Hon. Members on both sides of the House to read it carefully, and my door is always open.
However, I must say that I listened with very great care to Hon. Members in these comments after the ruling. I know those comments were made because they feel, and appropriately so, that they have a duty to comment in this Chamber on the ruling. I have not taken that as a challenge to the ruling, and 1 do not think in any way anybody should even indicate that that was in the minds of any of the Hon. Members who are well and favourably known to me. I do not think that was it at all.
I have said that 1 did not enjoy making this ruling. If you examine it carefully, you will see that it is a very carefully circumscribed ruling.
Now let me meet the observation of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) who said that this is putting an undue
amount of discretion on the Chair and that that is something new around here.
SO)
First, remember that all our precedents are as a consequence of some Speaker somewhere making a ruling. I do not seek more discretion. What I seek, and what I hope Hon. Members will do, is to clarify these rules in such a way that no Speaker, whether it is myself or somebody else, is put into the position which I feel I have been put into in this circumstance where I have to make a decision which can give grave concern. I may think that I will not abuse the discretionary position that I have taken at a future time, but what Hon. Members have to concern themselves with is that I might not, but somebody else might.
I want to say to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) and others that I am deeply aware of all of that danger. There it is. This, as all Hon. Members know, is not always an easy place to be sitting. I want to say again how much I appreciate the spirit of goodwill and devotion to this place that Hon. Members have exhibited in receiving a ruling which I recognize is not one which some members would have wished me to make at this time.
The Hon. Minister for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) is rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. Jelinek:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



[Stage Direction]
Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur
Sport)): Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have given you appropriate notice, and it is with sadness and some anger that I must rise today on a question of privilege arising out of the totally irresponsible conduct of a fellow Member of this House during Question Period yesterday. The Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) used distorted information, half-truths and unsubstantiated innuendo to smear my reputation as a Member of Parliament.
If this were an isolated incident by the Opposition using unchecked and wrong information, it would be hard to justify taking the time of the House to respond. As I will detail in a few moments, all-I repeat, all the facts relevant to this case have been on the public record at the office of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General if the Member had bothered to ask. He did not.
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, this is not an isolated incident. This House of Commons over which you preside has become too often little more than a forum of mud-slinging and smear tactics by Hon. Members. However, there is no honour in
April 14, 1987
[Stage Direction]
character assassination. There is no honour in unresearched personal attacks on members and their families. There is no honour in unsubstantiated smear tactics.
Let me summarize this matter briefly. In 1980, I purchased a 50 per cent share of a six-unit apartment house at 504 Albert Street in Ottawa. On May 20, 1982, I signed over the ownership of the building to Mr. Ken Gibson, an Ottawa lawyer and owner of the remaining 50 per cent share, retaining my portion in trust. That was in 1982.
Upon becoming a cabinet Minister in the fall of 1984, I disclosed in writing my interest to the Assistant Deputy Registrar General. This is and has been a matter of public record. By January of this year I agreed, and immediately notified the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, of my intention to sell.
As part of the transaction, Mr. Gibson asked for a six month delay of payment from closing to August 14, 1987, which I also accepted. Upon the advice of my attorneys, I secured the balance of the purchase price due on August 14, 1987, by taking a second and third mortgage on the two properties in question, on a non-interest bearing basis. At no time did I make an interest-bearing loan or any other type of loan to Mr. Gibson or to anyone else.
On the date of closing, I was away on government business. In fact, I had the pleasure of representing the Government of Canada in Cape Breton for the Canada Winter Games and, therefore, gave my wife a power of attorney, as I have often done in the past. I regret also that Hon. Members had to drag my wife into this matter.
I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that as always I kept the Assistant Deputy Registrar General informed of my activities prior, during and after the transaction. In fact, part of the purchase agreement which I intend to table-it is a purchase agreement which, if the Hon. Member had asked, would have been made available to him-reads, in part, that "on closing Jelinek shall deliver to Gibson, among other things":
A letter from the office of the appropriate official of the Government of
Canada confirming that Jelinek has made full disclosure of his interest in this
transaction and that the within transaction is in no way viewed as a conflict of
interest or an inappropriate involvement.
That letter was dated and received by me on February 12, 1987, from Mr. Robert Boyle, the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, five full days prior to closing.
With consent, Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to table both of these documents to which I have just referred.
Mr. Speaker:: I think I can indicate to the Hon. Minister that the documents can be sent to the Table.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, this information and all other pertinent information has always been publicly available and any responsible individual, Member of Parliament or otherwise, should have availed himself of this information prior to making unnecessary and unfounded accusations that damaged
Privilege-Mr. Jelinek
not only my reputation but, more important to me, that damaged the reputation of my family.
What happened yesterday during Question Period by the Opposition therefore is once again a totally irresponsible example and a clear abuse of parliamentary procedures which must be corrected. This has gone on far too long.
These are the facts, Mr. Speaker, facts which the Members could have obtained for themselves, facts which, had they bothered to check, surely would have kept them from smearing myself, my family and putting in bad light all members, yes, all Members of this House of Commons.
Everyone in public life expects to be criticized from time to time based on our policies, opinions or statements. I am no exception. I have been here long enough and I accept criticism, especially constructive criticism. But what this House of Commons must no longer permit is the use of this Chamber for unfair and vicious personal attacks with no foundation or justification. Parliamentary immunity, a time honoured and necessary requirement for the parliamentary system, is being cynically abused.
Notwithstanding, I am, and will be, watching carefully all statements made by Members outside the House with a view to taking whatever legal action is necessary. Believe me, I will be watching so carefully that if there is any justification for taking legal action I will be doing just that, because I have had it up to here with you guys on the other side.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Neither I, nor any Member of this House, should be subjected to this outrage any longer, Mr. Speaker. I am proud of my name and proud of my family. I deeply resent being wrongly slandered and having my parliamentary privileges so blatantly abused. I am angered by how deeply the reputation of all members, and this House itself, is being tarnished by the irresponsible conduct of a few. Every time a smear is made-this is a big problem-no matter how groundless, unfortunately, some of the mud sticks. The stigma remains, and that has happened in this case.

It is for that reason, and because my personal privileges as a Member of Parliament have indeed been abused, I believe I have a prima facie case of privilege. If you, Sir, find that I do indeed have a prima facie case of privilege, I would move, seconded by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mazan-kowski):
That of the allegations made by the Member for Ottawa Centre as found at
page 5094 Hansard dated April 13, 1987 be referred to the Standing
Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedures with the usual power to
call for papers, persons and records and to report by May 31, 1987.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the statement made by the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek), and also

April 14, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Jelinek
on the questions raised in the House yesterday. I must say that I regret some of the comments he made here because, when I raised the question, I thought the question was legitimate in relation to the conflict of interest and Code of Conduct guidelines issued by the Government for cabinet Ministers and other senior officials in September, 1985, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
1 will not read all the questions, but in view of the comments made by the Minister who is suggesting that he has been slandered, and he has used a number of other fairly substantial words, accusing me also of irresponsible conduct, 1 will read the question I put yesterday to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). My first question was the following:
In view of the risky nature of this investment can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether speculative commercial mortgage lending is a permitted activity under the Government's Code of Conduct for Ministers of the Crown?
My second question recalled that section of the code, Section 29, that said Ministers shall not, outside their official duties, actively manage or operate a business or commercial activity. I pointed out that it appeared that the properties in question were grossly over-mortgaged, except in light of a speculative effort by the new owner, Mr. Gibson or Mr. Gibson and his partners, to redevelop them.
Then I asked the following question:
When a cabinet Minister makes a $354,000 second or third mortgage loan, is that not a commercial activity which is in fact prohibited by the code? What action does the Government intend to take to enforce the code with respect to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport?
The Minister has indicated that he did consult with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General. In fact, I have not seen a copy of the purchase agreement. I want to tell the House that I did inform the Minister's office that I would be raising this matter yesterday and, albeit with short notice, I also gave the necessary documents to the Deputy Prime Minister prior to asking the question.
I would point out that the documents which I communicated to the Deputy Prime Minister included the filings the Minister had made with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General in 1984 and 1985, and more recently in February of 1987. As the Minister states, he did disclose, as he is permitted to do, the holding of the 50 per cent interest in the property on Albert Street in his submissions in 1984 to 1986. In 1987, that disclosure was not there because he had by that time sold the property in question.
I accept the statement of the Minister that he consulted with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General and was assured that in the opinion of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General there was compliance with the Code of Conduct. However, the Assistant Deputy Registrar General has been known to give advice at other times with which people in my Party have disagreed. In fact, some of the rulings of the ADRG have been subjected to lengthy judicial review, with what result we do not yet know. But nonetheless it is not necessarily the case that
just because the official in question made a ruling, therefore members of every Party will agree with that particular ruling.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Are we going to listen to you?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Deputy Prime Minister that I am trying to treat this issue with the seriousness which I think it deserves.
Perhaps I can share with you, Mr. Speaker, the reasons for my concerns which initially were brought to me by constituents who were concerned about speculation for redevelopment purposes in properties in downtown Ottawa which the local advisory committee on architectural conservation had sought to designate as heritage properties. Downtown Ottawa is within my constituency. In fact, the matter happens to be before a City Council committee today.
Is the loan which was granted by the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport a speculative loan? There is an agreement that he will receive $354,000 in August. In the first place, it is a loan whether or not interest is charged. I think that is quite clear. It is a promise to pay at some future date. In the second place-


Mr. Speaker:: I have been listening carefully to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) but I am getting a little concerned that what started off to be a series of questions, which the Hon. Member of course has a right to put, is getting dangerously close to being an assertion. I do not know if the Hon. Member intends that. I would ask the Hon. Member to consider it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I cite this because the Hon. Minister has accused me of irresponsible conduct, of distortion, of using unsubstantiated information and of slander. From what I can see in the Hansard record, this is because I referred to the transaction in which he was involved as a speculative transaction and as a commercial activity. This is why I am speaking on this particular matter. I will, however, try to be brief.
The facts as registered in the Registry Office-


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear from the Hon. Member. I am not closing him off at all. However, I would ask that the Hon. Member, and any other Hon. Member who speaks, address the direct question of whether or not the questions that were asked yesterday amount to, directly or indirectly, whatever way it may be, a breach of the privilege of the Hon. Minister.
What other things may be going on with regard to property in the neighbourhood are interesting, of course, and may have a lot to do with why the Hon. Member asked the question, but I would ask the Hon. Member to concentrate solely on that particular point. The Hon. Minister has said that those questions had the effect of carrying what we lawyers call an innuendo, an innuendo of wrongful conduct, and that is basically what the Hon. Minister is pleading before the Chair. Therefore, I would ask the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre to address that point. I know I can count on his co-operation.
April 14, 1987


Michael Morris Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will address that point directly then.
In the first place, since the question has been asked, at no time did I make a suggestion in any way that the activities in which the Minister was involved would have been illegal had they been conducted as a private business transaction. I may deplore land speculation and speculation for redevelopment but, nonetheless, that is not an illegal activity in our society. That is not the question.
The question is whether a Minister of the Crown who is governed by the conflict of interest Code of Conduct for Ministers should in fact be making a loan which appears to be in the nature of a speculative investment, or whether in fact he should not have carried that out through a blind trust if, for reasons of his own, he felt that it was time to dispose of his interest in property. Again, that was an interest in property he had acquired in a legitimate way when he was a private Member of the House and which he had disclosed appropriately to the Assistant Deputy Registrar General. That, I believe, is the question on which I can focus.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre may not want to respond, but I think it is in the interest of the Chair, in view of the fact that this is a Question of Privilege, that the Chair be absolutely clear what position the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is taking.
Is the Hon. Member taking the position that yesterday in this Chamber he was entitled to ask questions, or, is he asserting that, while whatever transaction we have been hearing about may well be legal, nonetheless, it amounts to a breach of the conflict of interest guidelines?
As I understand the position of the Hon. Minister, he is saying that the effect of the questions was to accuse him of having breached the guidelines, not that the matter is illegal in the ordinary sense of commerce. I can share with the Hon. Member the fact that there have been times when even I have had some strong views about certain kinds of developments in some places. However, I think the point the Hon. Minister is making, a result of which his privileges have been breached, is that the effect of the innuendo carried by the questions was to slander him. The innuendo was an accusation or an assertion that the Hon. Minister was in breach of the guidelines. That seems to me to be the point we have before us.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I regret your use of the word "innuendo" because I am not aware of any innuendo which took place.


Mr. Malone:: Oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am not saying there was any innuendo. I am saying that the Hon. Minister has said that those questions carried an innuendo. Under the law of defamation, as Hon. Members will know, you do not have to say everything about
Privilege-Mr. Jelinek
someone, but if you say something which, in the minds of reasonable people, carries an accusation, even it is not spelled out, that is innuendo. As I understand the Hon. Minister, that is what he is saying; the effect of the questions yesterday was to carry an innuendo which reasonable people would take as being that the Minister was in breach of the guidelines. That seems to be the point the Hon. Minister has raised. While these other points are of interest, and no doubt led the Hon. Member to feel that he had an obligation to his constituents or others to raise the issue, that is the narrow point I have to decide.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on examination of the facts in question I drew the conclusion that there was a substantial case that the Minister was in breach of the guidelines, the Code of Conduct for Ministers-


Otto John Jelinek: Without checking the facts.


Michael Morris Cassidy: -and public officials. I believe it is a legitimate activity in the House of Commons to raise questions about complaints-


Otto John Jelinek: Check the facts first.


Michael Morris Cassidy: -which are not a legal matter, but which are under the discretion of the Prime Minister and delegated through him to the Deputy Prime Minister.
When you review the record, my first question was to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the activity in question was permitted activity under the Code of Conduct for Ministers of the Crown. On the question of privilege, I maintain that it is certainly legitimate for Members of this House to ask questions about the application. In addition, the fact that an official may have given a ruling to a cabinet Minister on this subject or any other subject does not therefore bind all Members of this House to agree with the ruling.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Particularly since the official in question has made judgments in the past which have been open to question and, in fact, to judicial review.
The question here then is, I suppose, that the Minister might claim he disagrees with my judgment of what took place when I spoke of it as commercial and speculative mortgage activity. I am prepared to explain my use of those terms. However, I think you have indicated you would prefer I not go into detail on those. I would merely point out, however, that if this development were to succeed, the value of an investment of $70,000 by the Minister seven years ago would rise to something over $350,000, far in excess of the growth in property prices generally, which is one reason I referred to it as being a speculative kind of investment.
My final reason for raising this is that of a matter of public policy. I was asking specifically the Deputy Prime Minister whether or not this was a commercial activity prohibited by the code. If it is permitted by the code, if cabinet Ministers can

April 14, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Jelinek
buy and sell real estate and advance money on a promise of payment or on a mortgage, then it would appear to me that means they can carry on what amounts to the business of commercial real estate activity while holding office under the Crown. I believe, and I was seeking to make the point with the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, that that kind of activity should be prohibited. If the current interpretation is that it is permitted under the code, then I suggest it is time this Elouse of Commons and the Government reviewed and altered the code to make it very clear that an activity which may have been acceptable to the ADRG under the current code would not be acceptable in the future. Those are my points.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member takes the position that whatever he may have said he did not mean it to carry an innuendo of wrongdoing against the Minister. It seems to me the Hon. Member is now saying, and perhaps quite properly, that perhaps the guidelines should be re-examined. That is a legitimate issue of debate in this place. However, given that the Hon. Minister has said everything he did was at least fully reported to the Assistant Deputy Register General, the gentleman who is supposed to look after these things, perhaps the Hon. Member would like to make it clear to the House- the Hon. Member may want to say this or he may not, but it seemed to me it would be appropriate if the Hon. Member wanted to say that his questions were directed at a question of public concern, which is the guidelines, but they were not directed at any suggestion that the Hon. Minister, especially after what he has said today, was knowingly in breach of those guidelines. If the Hon. Member wishes to make that clear to the Chamber it might help a lot.


Michael Morris Cassidy: As I have said before, there is no suggestion of illegality in the actions of the Minister. I believe the Minister is and was in breach of the code in this particular transaction. However, I accept that the Minister consulted with the ADRG and complied with the advice he had. In giving that advice I believe the ADRG was in error in his interpretation of the code. If that interpretation stands, then I suggest it allows all kinds of commercial real estate activity by Ministers and it is wrong and therefore should be changed. Either the Minister and the official erred in their interpretation of the code or the code itself is in error and should be changed.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add two or three points to this discussion. The first is simply to refer to Citation 55 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which says:
The privilege of freedom of speech is ... the most fundamental right of the
Member of Parliament on the floor of the House-
I think it is important to keep that in mind when we examine the question of whether or not there has been a breach of privilege. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) was exercising that right during Question Period. He was directing his questions to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), the cabinet Minister responsible for the conflict of interest guidelines. In other words, it was directed to
the appropriate Minister, because the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre indicated there was some question of whether or not the guidelines had been breached.
When you look at the questions asked it seems to me that the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) is perhaps protesting somewhat unduly, because the question asked, and I think it is worth repeating, is simply that: In view of the risky nature of this investment can the Deputy Prime Minister-
And it is the Deputy Prime Minister who is responsible for answering for the ADRG-


Otto John Jelinek: The Prime Minister.


Nelson Andrew Riis: In his absence the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) assumes that responsibility.
He asked:
-can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether speculative commercial mortgage lending is a permitted activity under the Government's Code of Conduct for Ministers of the Crown?
That is a simple question and, I might add, a legitimate question. It was raised during Question Period which presumably is the appropriate time to raise questions when seeking information.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre went on to ask:
When a Cabinet Minister makes a $354,000 second or third mortgage loan, is that not a commercial activity which is in fact prohibited by the code? What action does the Government intend to take to enforce the code with respect to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport?
Those are straightforward questions. There is certainly no innuendo there, simply a question whether the code was breached and were these types of mortgages recognized as speculative commercial loans.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Withdraw, then.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We asked the question during Question Period. We directed the question to the appropriate Minister. There were no innuendoes in either the introductory comments or in the questions themselves. In my view, there is no question of privilege.
If a Member of the House of Commons does not have the right to ask these kinds of questions during Question Period, seeking legitimate information, what kind of questions are we permitted to ask?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: While smearing other members? Smear some more.


John R. Rodriguez: You are so sensitive. Poor baby.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I appreciate that there seems to be a great deal of sensitivity on the other side. Quite frankly, I recall a number of occasions when totally different situations were being
April 14, 1987

evaluated and questions were being asked in the House of Commons. Again, the appropriate questions apparently had been put to the Assistant Deputy Registrar General who ruled that, in fact, all the guidelines were being followed. Subsequently there were public inquiries and so on.
I suggest that when facts such as this are brought to our attention, Question Period is the forum provided for by the Standing Orders to give the opportunity to ask legitimate questions seeking information.
In conclusion, if Members of Parliament cannot exercise their very basic privilege to rise in the House to seek information from the appropriate Minister, then what is the point of having Question Period, and what kind of questions can be pursued?


Otto John Jelinek: You should not smear members in the process.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to the Hon. House Leader of the New Democratic Party. Clearly, questions are allowable and that is the purpose of Question Period. Innuendo and the imputation of motives clearly are not allowable.
I believe if the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), who is a very reasonable and thoughtful Member of Parliament, were to reread the questions and the underlying imputations, he would find that there are certainly some very clear accusations. I want to outline two or three of them.
Inherent in the question is an accusation that the Minister did not make reference to a $354,000 mortgage or arrangement for the transaction. That information was clearly available. It was public information and public knowledge. The member could have had it if he wanted it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I did. It is in the Registry Office.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The details of it are clearly there.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The file is not open to Members of Parliament.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is clearly there.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The file is not open to Members of Parliament.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The ADRG indicated that at no time did the-he selectively extract information to use for his own political purpose.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: There is some dispute between the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). Of course, I will hear the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre if he wishes to respond to anything that the Hon. Minister has said. In the meantime, perhaps we could get on with the remarks. If there are Members on both sides who feel a great need to get involved in this debate I will, of course, recognize them and they can address their remarks through the Chair.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The point I am making is that the Hon. Member sought not to ascertain all the facts. He selectively pulled out information to use for his own benefit. I repeat, the details of the transaction are clearly available.
He also accuses the Minister of breaching the guidelines.
Privilege-Mr. Jelinek


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is imputing motives.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is clearly unfounded because the Hon. Minister has clearly put on the record today the fact that he has complied with all the guidelines. Perhaps when the Hon. Member has a chance to read it he might change his mind.
He also accuses him of commercial speculation. There is no commercial speculation in this particular transaction. The Hon. Member lived in the apartment in question. He owned it since 1980,1 believe. It was something that he had, long before he became a Minister of the Crown. Therefore, there was no loan or no action on the part of the Minister which would involve any speculation or any commercial activity.
He also accuses the Minister, in the course of his question, of managing or operating a business or commercial activity which is a violation of Section 29 of the code. That is totally false.
What is really more important is that the Hon. Member went outside the House and stated, "The Minister, who according to the Code of Conduct is not meant to be carrying on any commercial activity, is engaged in a speculative mortgage loan with respect to a property in downtown Ottawa". He has gone outside the House and repeated it. It is very clear that the Minister is in compliance and it is not a breach.
When these kinds of accusations are made, there is a longstanding tradition in the House that the Member can surely feel free to make such an allegation, but in the course of that he usually puts up his seat as a challenge, to show that he is serious about what he is suggesting. Failing that, I suggest that the Hon. Member has no choice but to either withdraw the innuendo and the allegations that have been made, directly or indirectly, and apologize, or we have the opportunity to have the matter aired fully before the respective Standing Committee. That is the purport of the motion.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise two matters at this time. First, I am sure in reviewing the question and answer on page 5094 of yesterday's Hansard that you will find indeed that the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) did not in any way impinge on the privilege of the Hon. Minister. His questions were direct. They may not be questions that the Minister likes, but they were questions that Members of Parliament should legitimately ask in the House of Commons.
The issue itself was in the public domain before Question Period. The Member for Ottawa Centre, in his statement to the House a few minutes ago, explained that he did go out of his way to research this area. He notified the Minister's office of his intent, and when he found out that the Minister was not here he notified the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) of his intent to raise the issue. While those actions are not necessary, they are a courtesy that the Member for Ottawa Centre extended to ensure that the Minister or, in his absence, the Deputy Prime Minister had an opportunity to be aware that the issue was to be raised and to be in a position to answer those allegations.

April 14, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Jelinek
I previously sat in the Standing Committee on Privileges, Elections and Procedure when there was a hearing on the privileges of a Member of Parliament in the Bryce Mackasey-Montreal Gazette affair. It is not easy for Members of Parliament to sit and judge such an issue. It is not a very easy process to experience and I think we must be very careful before referring matters of this nature to a committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: You should be careful before you say it, then.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why don't you put up or shut up?


Otto John Jelinek: What are you afraid of?


Mr. Crosby:: You supported the Mackasey reference. What are you afraid of?


Rodney Edward Murphy: I am not saying that this is something we would be afraid to send to committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can help the Hon. Member. I do not think we are at the stage right now where we are talking about whether or not it goes to committee. What the Chair is interested in is, what is the issue. The Minister has made his position very clear. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) has resorted it and made very clear his own position. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has given us his version and his views. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) is, of course, addressing the matter with his usual skill and understanding of this place.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I always find that the people who do not get up on their feet tend to talk the most from their seats. I think there is a reason for that. They probably have nothing to offer to this House.
As someone who sat through the hearings of our committee on the Bryce Mackasey-Montreal Gazette case, which dragged out over many months, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is important when there is a matter going before that committee that we have direct instructions with which we can deal. I am not saying this matter is going before the committee, but I am warning the House and the Speaker that in the Bryce Mackasey affair, when it came down to the final question, we were not allowed to make a judgment as to what exactly Bryce Mackasey was involved in and what he was not involved in. We were restricted.
The ruling that went against The Gazette, and the reporter involved, related to the nature of the two questions which were sent to that committee. No one said that the reporter was unfair or that he had not done his work. No one said that The
Gazette was not doing a decent job of investigative journalism. For that matter, in the committee testimony, which took place over many months, it was evident that there was an attempt to get more facts from the principals in this case. However, because of the nature of the motion which was accepted by the Speaker, we were restricted to two very specific elements. Because of that, The Gazette and the reporter were deemed to have been in contempt of Parliament and to have breached the privileges of the former Member for Lincoln, Mr. Mackasey.
I have already said I believe the questions asked by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, were certainly within the bounds of what one would expect a Member of Parliament to ask. He certainly had done his research and had certainly notified the Government of his intent prior to Question Period. He did all that. However, I am saying that if on this matter, or on any further matter, something of this nature is going to be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, we must be careful to ensure that the motion which is entertained and accepted by the Chair allows that committee to do a full, complete and thorough job of looking at the Members' privileges and the privileges of reporters and others.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this matter simply because of the reference made by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) to the Bryce Mackasey case. As the Hon. Member knows, I shared, along with himself, the concerns of Members of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure which examined that case at the time, and the process in this House of Commons which led to the reference to that committee. I think there is a clear similarity between the two cases, as the Hon. Member pointed out. However, I want to focus your attention, Mr. Speaker, on an element that is present in this House today which must be considered now by the Chair.
Mr. Mackasey was faced with an allegation of wrongful conduct on his part in a national newspaper, The Montreal Gazette. He brought that complaint to the House of Commons. He said "I have been wronged because a statement has been made about me which is not true and affects my privileges as a Member of this House of Commons. I want that matter referred to the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure". It was so referred.
The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) has come to the same House of Commons and said, "A statement has been made about me which is not true, for which there is no real substance and the proof lies in the very materials on which the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre relies to make the statement". There is no denial on the part of the
April 14, 1987

Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), no retraction. He sticks to what he said. The issue is there. The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport says he has been wronged, his privileges are affected. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre continues his allegation of wrongness. It is obvious that someone has to review the situation and a decision must be made. The appropriate forum in this House of Commons is the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.
I do not know what further discussion there can be other than a retraction here and now from the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre in respect of the complaint of the Minister. That is to say, that he did not mean to state that there was any wrongdoing, that he did not mean to imply any wrongdoing, he merely wished to raise the question on the floor of the House of Commons, which I would agree he is entitled to do. He is allowed to raise the issue. However, in raising the issue he made an allegation which he now has to stand by or retract.
As far as I understood his intervention, he said very clearly that he stands by his allegation. He thinks the rule was violated, and if it was not violated in the opinion of the director, the director is wrong, and if the director is right, the rules should be changed. I understood him very clearly. He stands by his allegation. Let him go before the committee and prove it.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. In the course of discussion of this very important and, in my view, very essential Question of Privilege raised by my colleague, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek), a lot of statements have been made about freedom of speech and privileges of members to speak their minds in this Chamber. No one would dispute that. It is absolutely essential to the operation of this Chamber. Further, it is essential in our system-sometimes less essential in others-that during Question Period all Hon. Members of the House have an opportunity to question the Government about its activities.
That fundamental freedom of parliamentarians to speak freely in this Chamber and to question Government during Question Period, is circumscribed by a whole range of rules which were established in the long tradition of this institution and its predecessor institutions in the United Kingdom. We have, for example, severe limits on the words which can be used. One cannot use accusatory or inflammatory words in keeping with the traditions of this House. Beauchesne is full of examples of what should be a proper question and what a question should seek. Citation 359 of Beauchesne makes it very clear; the question ought to seek information and so on.
There is an equally important provision in the long traditions of this House that members may not accuse another member of a wrongdoing. One cannot use the immunities of this institution to make an accusation. The tradition is that if one makes an accusation of wrongdoing, one does so with such conviction that one willingly puts one's own seat under
Privilege-Mr. Jelinek
consideration. That is a vitally important tradition. If members are free at any time to accuse other members of wrongdoing without the sanction of having to defend their convictions by putting at risk their seats, then we open the door to a free flow of those accusations. We open the door to anyone to stand up and say, you are a thief, you are a crook, you have done this and that. Those who came before us were very wise in the establishment of our traditions. The decisions made by your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, which are found in Beauchesne, are very wise and should be followed.
It has been suggested by a number of speakers on this side of the House as to the course of action open to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). He ought to take that course of action if he has any respect for this institution.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have several comments I would like to make in response to the points which I know have been made sincerely by Members of the Government, although perhaps they do protest a bit too much. In fact, I think everyone in the House will acknowledge that the Code of Conduct itself is imprecise and that if it can provoke an hour-long debate in the House then perhaps we should spend an equal amount of energy ensuring that we have a Code of Conduct that is effective, enforceable and which can be easily understood.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may well be correct, that is not for the Chair to say. But let us return again to what the complaint is. The complaint is that the consequence of what was said in the House yesterday was a slander on the character or the conduct of the Minister. That is the issue. That is the issue I have to face.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I was also accused of not having done any research and of providing selective information. First, I would point out to the Deputy Prime Minister that in the material which I circulated to him and the press I included the summary statement by the Minister for 1984 and 1985. I skipped 1986 because it was a duplicate and I provided the statement for February, 1987. These are the documents which are available to the public.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is more than that available.


Michael Morris Cassidy: To my knowledge-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: To your knowledge, that is the shortcoming.


Michael Morris Cassidy: To my knowledge, since I have asked previously for other information from the Assistant Deputy Registrar-General. He takes it as his view that if he has a statement of compliance then that is it. I also made available to my colleagues in the other Party information available from the registry office. As the Deputy Prime Minister stated in his response yesterday, an interim mortgage was arranged on this property until August. For me to suggest that a mortgage was

April 14, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Jelinek
offered on the property I certainly do not think is any slander or innuendo, since the Deputy Prime Minister has repeated the words.


Mr. Speaker:: I will let the Hon. Member finish. However, perhaps he could make it easier for the Chair. Of course, the Hon. Member can say if he chooses that he did not intend any slander of the Minister's character or conduct. If that is the position of the Hon. Member, then I think, in a case such as this, the Chair should certainly hear it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, to conclude, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) has just suggested that any allegation of a breach of the Code of Conduct must automatically be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. He seems to be saying that any allegation of wrongdoing on the part of a Cabinet Minister has to go before that committee. That would certainly involve an awful lot of work for the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. It seems to me that to suggest that, is in fact to kill effective, fair comment here in the House of Commons about the performance or the actions of Cabinet Ministers. Members of the Opposition should not be inhibited or unable to raise matters of public importance on the grounds that the Government will then take up the time of a committee of the House in exhaustively going over every such statement which is made in the House.


Otto John Jelinek: Over your allegations.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, if members opposite want me to talk about the allegations, then I will. However, Your Honour has tried to discourage that a couple of times. I would point out to the Chair that members opposite seem to be interested in why I referred to this as a speculative and commercial activity. I simply say, and I will be very brief, that a commercial activity is the type of mortgage lending that one would see made as a private business venture. For a person to have made a deal such as the Minister made as a private business person would be legitimate in our society. As I stated before, there is nothing illegal with it. However, a commercial deal is something that appears to be prohibited by the Code of Conduct.
In addition, the question is whether this matter is speculative. That word has also been objected to. Yesterday and today I suggested that when a building is sold for $325,000 a year ago and is then mortgaged for double that amount the holder of the subordinated mortgage, in this case the Minister, must surely be depending on a speculative increase-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member closes his remarks, which he is certainly entitled to make, the Chair wants to know this. Does the Hon. Member want to make any statement at all as to whether or not it was the intent, as a consequence of his questions yesterday, to accuse the Minister of some wrong conduct or breach of the code? Surely, in a matter such as this the Chair can at least have that position made clear by the Hon. Member. The allegation that is made now against the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is that his
questions yesterday carried an innuendo of wrongdoing against the Minister. If that was not the intent of the Hon. Member, then surely the Hon. Member should say so. It would help the Chair a great deal.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have to confess that I am a bit confused by your question. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister if actions that appeared to be speculative commercial mortgage lending in this particular case were permitted activities under the code. That was the nature of my question. I do not know how I could have raised the question without-


Mr. Speaker:: I will not close the Hon. Member off before he is finished. However, the question the Chair has to decide is with respect to the fact that the Minister has come into the House and has said: "Those questions yesterday carried an innuendo of wrongdoing against me". That is what he is saying. What the Chair wants to know is, because this matter is raised as a question of privilege, did the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre mean to do that? The Chair would be the last to suggest that Members cannot ask questions about the guidelines, or even about transactions. But the question that I have to look at is, did the Hon. Member mean to accuse the Minister of some sort of wrongdoing? I am not talking about illegality in the market-place; I am talking about wrongdoing in relation to the guidelines. I invite the Hon. Member to help me a little bit in responding to that specific question since that is what I have to decide.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I think the simple answer I can give to you is that I was seeking to get information about a matter which I think is an important matter. If, in fact, it was the response of the Government House Leader that this was not a violation of the code, then of course my attention would turn to the code which would permit activity that a common sense judgment might deem unacceptable for Cabinet Ministers. But I was seeking that information because this is an important issue concerning public policy.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank Hon. Members for their interventions. The Hon. Member for Churchill was very helpful. Obviously, the Chair will reserve on this matter and examine Hansard very carefully.
I think that the Chair ought to observe, as I have observed in the past, that once upon a time in the mists of history one could say anything in the House of Commons but not outside it. One could say anything because it was in the public interest that the ordinary laws of defamation did not apply to members when they were in their place speaking on public matters. I remind all Hon. Members that that was history. That was yester-year, yester-century, if there is such a word. Today, anything said in here is immediately said outside.
I will, of course, consider carefully all of the arguments. But 1 do ask Hon. Members to take this into consideration. Arguing about it for hours later does not get away from the fact that I think one ought to be more careful in this Chamber than once was the case. I am not setting that down as a rule. I
April 14, 1987

am just setting it out as a suggestion. What is said in here is said immediately outside because of television, and everyone knows that. Thus we have to be, and I have to be on behalf of all Hon. Members, very careful to guard the right of Hon. Members to speak freely in this place and to speak with vigour and to search with tenacity for the truth. At the same time, if it requires Hon. Members to sometimes take a little more time before they make a suggestion in here, keeping in mind that what they suggest does go immediately outside, then I would ask that Hon. Members do that.
I will consider the matter very carefully and return to the House at the appropriate time. I thank Hon. Members.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to stand at this time but I am very concerned about the last statement you made. I want to clarify it for my own sake and for that of members of my caucus. We agree with you that the televising of our debates in the House is indeed instant broadcasting, if I may, of the proceedings of the House. We also realize that with the modern means of communication that broadcast is transmitted to the entire country very quickly.
1 hope I misunderstood you, Mr. Speaker, but I do not want the House to be left with what may be a misunderstanding which I got from your remarks. The electronic Hansard of this House is under your authority and is only broadcast under your authority and control. I do not think that I should, at any time, feel threatened or-

-threatened, that is the word, threatened as regards my right to express myself freely in the House and to voice my opinions, whether or not they are shared by the Opposition or the Government. That is not the point. The debate in the House is fair, and I think you probably meant to say that we respect a member's right to speak but that there are of course limitations existing in our libel laws that require us to respect the opinions of the other person and not infringe on the rights of those who are on the other side of the question. However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be sure that the message that comes across is always seen to be what it is: an honest, clear and accurate message from the Members of this House, and that there will be no attempt to tinker with, change or alter the televised message.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take any more time on this issue, other than to say that we have had a very useful interchange this morning. The points raised on both sides were appropriate and needed to be made this morning. However, in the same spirit as the comments made by my hon. colleague in the Liberal Party, I would like to say that one of the facets of our parliamentary system which we hold up with a great deal of pride is that which has been the focus of a great deal of discussion this morning, Question Period, and the very
Privilege-Mr. Jelinek
valuable role which Question Period plays in our country and in our parliamentary system.
I would like to add a very deep concern I have, which I do not believe has been stated here today at all. During that three-quarters of an hour Members of Parliament, in a respectful and honourable way, pose questions to the appropriate Ministers of the Crown. That privilege must not be abused and must be respected at all times. I believe that the discussions we have had here today will facilitate that in the future. I just want to emphasize how important that three-quarters of an hour is in this country which prides itself on maintaining the principles of free and open speech.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister in just a moment. Hon. Members will remember that the Chair allowed the questions yesterday. When I say that what is said in here is said outside immediately, it is only a suggestion that we be as careful as we can.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as usual my learned friend, the Member for Ottawa-Vanier, made some very salient points on this issue, which points were supported by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. You touched on the fact, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of Question Period and debate we as Hon. Members have to conduct ourselves in a responsible fashion. We must be very, very careful when we attempt to imply motives which may not be desirable or when we attempt to cast aspersions or make innuendoes. 1 think there has been some slippage in that regard.


Rodney Edward Murphy: By Ministers as well.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I listened to the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) this morning and I will listen to him again if he wants to speak.


Rodney Edward Murphy: No, you heckled.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This morning has been a clear example of a Minister of the Crown being profoundly affected by questions and suggestions, either directly or indirectly. He feels very strongly about it. He is an Hon. Member, he is an Hon. Minister of the Crown. He went to some pain and some length to try to outline in full detail the transaction referred to in the course of Question Period yesterday. He feels very seriously grieved by the exchange which took place and by what was reported in the media. That is important and you have touched upon it, Mr. Speaker. It is fair to say, as he alluded in his statement, that his reputation is tarnished and his family is affected.


Mr. Nystrom:: Remember Erik Nielsen.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: All Members of Parliament are affected. Let us not hide that fact. I think the Leader of the Liberal Party made that suggestion when he laid down his four points of conduct in disciplining his Party in matters such as this.

April 14, 1987
This morning we have heard a debate on a very serious issue which was raised yesterday and was sprinkled with some very serious allegations and innuendo. Those allegations have not been supported. The allegations are implied, either directly or indirectly. They are not founded and have not been substantiated by the member.
I am of the firm opinion that the Hon. Member who made these allegations, either directly or indirectly, either inside the House or outside the House, has a clear opportunity now, in the spirit of improving the climate in this institution, to withdraw and apologize, or to welcome and support the initiative contained in the motion which the Hon. Minister is prepared to move, or to take the other honourable course, if he feels very strongly that his allegations are well founded and substantiated, of putting up his seat and taking the necessary course of action.
I think we all want to resolve this issue in the best, fairest and most practical way possible. I think this is a good time to call upon all Hon. Members to consider the importance of this institution itself. This is a good time to exercise a little tolerance and understanding.
1 have sat on the opposition side as well as the government side. I was a member of an opposition Party which had 70 members when the Government had a huge majority. Notwithstanding that, we were fairly effective in making our points of view known. We always had the kind of torrid debate which clearly exemplifies the traditions of this House. However, there has always been a clear understanding that innuendo, unfounded allegations, and the hurling of suspicions is something which we try to avoid as much as possible. I think that that sort of activity in the House has been on the increase. Anything we can do with your leadership, Mr. Speaker, to attempt to ameliorate that will be in the best interests of this institution and all Hon. Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister. It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: For
a week now, Mr. speaker, the Conservative Ministers have
been trying to make people forget the regrettable two and a half years that have gone by since this Government came into office on September 4.
We saw the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) attempt to convince western Canadians to set up a committee to come up with a new energy policy. Mr. Speaker, after the calamity, after this incompetent Government drove the western provinces into bankruptcy, all of a sudden this Minister wakes up two and a half years later and strikes a committee to repair the damage.
Yesterday we also saw the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) step up to the podium; having failed miserably with his regional development policies, he discovers his own shortcomings and incompetence, so he too decides to convene the provinces in the hope that they will help him draft new policies.
Mr. Speaker, like the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada, especially western Canadians, I am telling these Ministers and this Government: It is too late. People want an election, they want to get rid of this incompetent Government.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, a few months ago I rose in this House to echo the concern of Abitibi-Price Company officials about the possibility of a new paper mill being opened in Matane thanks to Government grants.
Mr. Speaker, without any grants the management of Abitibi-Price have taken the initiative of investing $150 million in their Kenogami plant to produce a fine supercalendered paper quite similar to the product which would be marketed by Matane.
Mr. Speaker, if the Quebec Government is so intent on having one more competitor in the pulp and paper industry, it seems to me the Minister responsible, Mr. Caccia, should at least meet with Abitibi-Price senior officials, union spokesmen, and the very concerned 1,200 workers.
With supporting figures and strong guarantees, he should assure them that the Abitibi-Price operations will not be threatened in any way and that our workers will not be laid off.
For the time being, Mr. Speaker, I am still very worried about the impact of this project, and I urge my Government to be very careful in this case.
April 14, 1987



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, much attention has been paid lately in the House, and rightly so, to the whole question of acid rain. However, there is another and equally serious environmental problem which often does not receive attention in the House, that is, the whole matter of sewage treatment-the need for upgrading and modernization and, in some places, just putting in the basic infrastructure for sewage treatment in Canada.
We are reminded of that need in the story yesterday about thousands of gallons of sewage polluted storm water being pumped into the Great Lakes at Fort Erie, Ontario.
However, one of the most disturbing things is the total abdication of any responsibility in the area by the federal Government. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has said that this is up to the provinces and to the municipalities. What is really required is some leadership by the federal Government.
This is a massive job that needs to be undertaken throughout Canada, but some areas in particular ought to be kept specially in mind. For instance, in the Province of Quebec something like 40 per cent of the sewage still goes into the Canadian environment totally untreated. In 1987 that is nothing short of a crime, and it continues to be a political crime that the federal Government abdicates its responsibility.



HORTICULTURE


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of some 20,000 Canadian honey producers, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the financial difficulty which they are encountering. Unfortunately, American agricultural subsidies are having the same impact on our honey producers as U.S. grain subsidies are having on our grain farmers.
According to the Manitoba Honey Producers Association, the world market price of honey has dropped some 13 cents a pound and further declines are feared. As about 80 per cent of western Canadian honey is sold at that world price, that drop in world price has already forced many producers out of business. In addition, prairie honey producers are having difficulty finding markets, even at these reduced prices.
As you may know, Sir, the western Canadian honey beekeepers depend very heavily on American markets and,
unfortunately, those markets are now being interfered with by tariffs.
In addition, the markets which we have enjoyed in Europe are buying heavily subsidized American honey. As a result, many of Canada's honey producers will need financial assistance if they are to continue in business for another year.



INDUSTRY


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in July, 1984, the now Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in the company of many of his colleagues, both provincially and federally, made a commitment with regard to the modernization of Sydney Steel. That commitment was reaffirmed after the election in September, 1984.
People in eastern Nova Scotia had to wait 24 months before those sentiments were expressed in a subsidiary agreement signed by the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia. Another 12 months elapsed before finding out from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) that the Government had not received the business plan from Sydney Steel and the Province of Nova Scotia. We have been informed that the business plan has now been received by the Government of Canada.
We now learn from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion that there are two other hoops which the Province of Nova Scotia must go through before the federal Government will participate. This is an unconscionable delay. This is wanton disrespect for the people of eastern Nova Scotia who have been waiting for the Prime Minister, his colleagues in the Province of Nova Scotia and, in particular, the Members of Parliament who represent us in the federal Cabinet. It is absolutely unconscionable, Mr. Speaker.
I call upon the Government of the day to live up to its responsibilities and make this money available so that modernization will go on.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the previous Government started a practice of borrowing money outside Canada for the purpose of lending Canadians money through Crown corporations, such as the Farm Credit Corporation and the Federal Development Bank.

April 14, 1987
In order to accomplish this borrowing, these Crown corporations must offer high returns to the lender and then must charge Canadian borrowers a high rate of interest for a long period of time. When these factors are considered and any minor adversity the Canadian borrower may encounter happens, then the borrower is doomed to failure. The interest, or the unreasonable penalty paid in lieu of the interest, is paid to investors outside of Canada.
High interest rates doom our Canadian borrowers to failure. This borrowing practice of Crown corporations should stop and Crown corporations should become better money managers with Canadian money.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, while the Conservative Government makes promises and repeatedly tells Canadians how wonderful it is, the economic situation in western Canada worsens. In the last month the jobless numbers in British Columbia increased from 210,000 to 213,000. Nearly a quarter of a million British Columbians now are jobless and many more are underemployed.
In the northern interior the unemployment rate is 17 per cent; in the Okanagan Valley the unemployment rate is 17 per cent, in the Kootenays area the unemployment rate is 16 per cent, in the central interior the unemployment rate is 20 per cent, and in the City of Vancouver it is 14 per cent.
This devastating jobless situation has led to thousands of British Columbian children going hungry and suffering from malnutrition. Yet the Premier of the province says that feeding school children is certainly not a government responsibility. He says that hot-lunch programs in schools are too costly and are usually abused. I encourage the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to meet as soon as possible with his British Columbia counterpart to end the situation in that province.
A Victoria school trustee, Mr. John Young, estimates that his school district alone has at least 1,000 malnourished or hungry children.
In the Terrace school area, a soup program has been operating for years, giving free soup to children who come to school without any lunch money.
In Fort Nelson, one school has had a sharing shelf, similar to those in east end Vancouver schools, where children leave parts of their lunches for those who have no lunch at all. In another school district the parents' group organized a program of parents sending extra lunches for those young children
going without. I could go on and on. The situation is very serious.
Thousands of children in British Columbia are finding themselves hungry and/or malnourished, and the Premier of that province says "tough luck".



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, last night I met with a group of seniors at the R. J. Smith Seniors' residence in my riding. I went expecting some of these seniors to be upset about the Government's proposal to amend the Patent Act. Instead, I found that they were overwhelmingly concerned that they, their children and their grandchildren have access to the latest and most advanced drugs available on the market.
I know it will disappoint opposition Parties to find out that the seniors in Etobicoke North have not bought the Opposition's collection of half-truths and scare tactics about the Government's intention in amending the Patent Act. Seniors respect the concept of intellectual property and they also understand the connection between increased patent protection and the thousands of new jobs that will be created, not to mention the fact that these advanced new drugs will now be produced in Canada.
I do not think I could say it better than one senior who asked why members of the Opposition are trying to prevent us from getting the best quality medicine available. She said to tell them to stop the guff and let us get on with it.
 * *



CHILD CARE


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in Canada there are two million children aged 13 or under who require daycare, but only 172,000 places are available. Although the problem exists throughout the country, it is particularly significant in the National Capital region. According to the chairman of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Municipality's Health and Social Services Committee, the lack of daycare centres in the region is 10 times worse for Francophone families.
In fact, there are only three Francophone daycare centres in the Ottawa-Carleton region. According to some people, Francophone families have been slow to make use of daycare centres because they prefer to organize their own daycare.
April 14, 1987

However, if schools and daycare centres are an extension of the home, it is important to use the language spoken at home at the daycare centre as well as at school, so that the child will grow up in a familiar environment. And that is where the authorities have failed. It is now imperative to take the situation in hand and provide for daycare centres across the country where the official language spoken by the child in the home will be spoken and understood.



NAVY LEAGUE OF CANADA


Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday I had the privilege of addressing the annual general meeting of the Navy League of Canada. This national organization is dedicated to teaching seamanship and citizenship to some 11,000 young people in 230 Canadian communities.
Canada borders on three major oceans and possesses a longer coastline than any other nation. We are very much a maritime nation, a fact occasionally forgotten by some Hon. Members of this House. Maritime trade and maritime traffic are of vital importance to us, both from an economic and from a security point of view. Thus a knowledge of the sea, and its importance to Canada, are important lessons for young people.
The men and women of the Navy League, and the dedication of the many volunteers, do a great service to Canada through the training they offer our nation's youth. The Navy League very much deserves our recognition and appreciation for an important job well done.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-MINISTER'S APPROACH

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, again the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) is attacking those who oppose her free trade schemes. She has refused to debate with her critics across the country, yet she will attack them when she is safe from any reply.
What is even worse in this case is that she is clearly trying to use the power of government assistance to make one of her critics, Mel Hurtig, retreat from the fight. How much more respect there would be for the Minister if she debated Mr. Hurtig in Edmonton instead of ominously raising the issue of how much aid his company gets from the Government.
The economic, political and cultural case against comprehensive free trade with the U.S. is very strong. That is the argument the Minister should try to address instead of attacking her opponents. Her approach simply shows the weakness of her case.



UTILIZATION OF DUES PAID BY MEMBERS

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, according to the Gallup poll results published in Le Soleil on April 11, 1987, four out of five Canadians feel that people who pay union dues should have some say in the use of funds for nonunion purposes.
It is a fact that one of the Parties in this House, the New Democratic Party, is getting a substantial amount of funds from workers' payroll deductions. Incidentally, we would be interested to know which organization paid for the leader's trip to Rome to meet members of the Socialist International on April 6, 1987.
Mr. Speaker, eight out of 10 union members are against having their dues used for non-union purposes. The New Democratic Party is clearly thumbing its nose at unionized workers and at the judgment handed down on July 4, 1986, by Justice White of the Ontario Supreme Court, in which the use of these funds is challenged. So far, the Party has never clarified where it gets its funding. Will he continue to use the money of workers against their will and flout the principles of justice? These socialists who claim they will form the next Government should first clarify their sources of financing before the House.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, a crisis is developing in Sydney, Nova Scotia. Last February the federal Government signed a subsidiary agreement with the province regarding Sydney Steel Corporation. Yet it did not provide funding until the end of June, 1986. It did not appoint project managers until September. Then the question of market studies was thrown in the path of progress of the modernization. Those studies were done.
Then there was the problem of CN trying to renege on purchases from Sydney Steel. That was resolved just before

April 14, 1987
Oral Questions
the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) arrived to open the Winter Games in Sydney.
Now the Government, through the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote), says Nova Scotia has to purchase a universal mill before the federal Government will honour its commitment to provide 70 per cent of the funding for the second phase of the modernization of Sydney Steel. This is treachery against the people of Nova Scotia and industrial Cape Breton. It is another commitment broken by the Government. It is not honouring its promises, and I ask it to follow through on the commitments it has made.



NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP WEEK


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: This being National Citizenship Week, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say how proud I am to be a Canadian citizen.
Canada ranks among the world's most advanced countries in terms of the rights and freedoms enjoyed by its citizens. I am proud to live in a country which encourages all its cultural communities to protect and promote the language and traditions of their ancestors, a country which has always been regarded as a welcoming land. Its democratic traditions, its respect for individual freedoms, the industrious temperament as well as the pacific and tolerant character of its people are the envy of many nations. The most telling evidence of this is the fact that more than three million immigrants chose Canada as their adoptive country since the Citizenship Act first came into force in 1947.
Finally, I would dare assume that what Canadians lack most indeed is not the feeling of national pride but only the opportunities to express it loudly and clearly. I therefore urge all my fellow Canadians to make the most of this National Citizenship Week to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of Canadian citizenship.



FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, once again I want to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the disastrous situation with which the Canadian footwear industry must come to grips.
Since quotas were abolished on November 30, 1985, men's footwear imports have gone up by almost 50 per cent. Specifically, Southeast Asia imports rose from 63,000 to 213,500 pairs, an increase of 238 per cent.
In my riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell one firm in particular had to let go two-thirds of its employees, with the result that 150 people found themselves without jobs. Although the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) did meet with Canadian footwear industry officials, no decision has yet been made.
What we need from this Government, Mr. Speaker, is a five-year policy to guarantee jobs in the footwear industry. Quotas must be reinstated for at least five years. Only such a measure would make Canadians sure that they will keep their jobs.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance made a number of completely inconsistent statements yesterday in the House about the Dome Petroleum situation. He said, as reported in Hansard, that the situation is urgent. Then he said let the process run its course. Then he said that there should be a private sector solution. Then hinted that there may be major tax rulings.
Is the issue an urgent one or not? Does it involve major tax rulings affecting billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, and more fundamentally, does he intend to bring the whole issue before Parliament before the transaction is completed so that we can avoid the costly mistakes of the Gulf and Western deal and the costly bank bail-outs?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition refers to costly mistakes. It was the costly mistake of the National Energy Program that got Dome Petroleum into the situation it is in today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I know the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition agrees with that. He said it on many occasions prior to taking that seat over there.
He asked about the position of Dome. Yes, Dome's position will require some urgency as things progress because, as the Hon. Member knows, it is a takeover situation which requires immediate response to what is happening in the market-place.
When the Hon. Member asks about tax rulings amounting to billions of dollars, I think he should distinguish between a
April 14, 1987

tax ruling and tax concession. He is smiling, and I think he understands exactly what I am saying. A tax ruling is available to anyone and is a clarification of the law. It is something that is provided by my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue. Something that may require billions of dollars would be by way of a tax concession. Obviously that gives me a good deal more difficulty.


OFFERS MADE FOR DOME PETROLEUM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance also stated he would look into offers by foreign companies that might be reviewed by Investment Canada. This is diametrically opposed to the Government's initial policy to increase Canadian ownership in our gas and petroleum industry. My question is directed to the Prime Minister and it is: Will the Canadian Government consider offers from foreign companies to purchase Dome Petroleum, yes or no?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question was not quite clear in the translation. I will try to answer what I thought he was asking. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister responsible for Investment Canada have made it clear that there would be some understanding of the particular financial circumstances of companies that were the subject of an acquisition by a non-resident company. If a Canadian oil and gas company were in financial difficulty, as is the case with Dome Petroleum, then some adjustment would be made in the views the Government has towards that type of acquisition.


John Napier Turner: The Minister of Finance seems to be contemplating the possibility of an offer by a foreign company, which contradicts any statements any Minister of this Government has made affecting the oil and gas industry prior to this afternoon.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: want to refer to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister this morning on television had this to say: "It is for Dome to decide what is good for its shareholders, not the federal Government".
Would the Prime Minister tell us if the position of the Government is that it is for Dome to decide, when there are thousands of jobs at stake, when the health of the western Canadian economy is at stake, when our position, in terms of self-sufficiency for Canadians in petroleum, hydrocarbons, is at stake, and when there may be billions of taxpayers' dollars at stake? Is that the position of the Government of Canada?
Oral Questions


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Official Opposition knows perfectly well that in a free enterprise country like Canada, it is first up to corporate management to decide whether an offer is favourable for their shareholders and for the people within the corporation, including the employees.
Bearing that in mind, it is first of all up to Dome to accept or turn down any offers that may be made. Subsequently, when an offer has been made, it will have to be considered by the Government, in accordance with the policies in place at this time.


CANADIANIZATION POLICY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Two of the pillars of the energy policy of the Progressive Conservatives going into the last election were security of supply and Canadianization. Canadianization, in particular, is a program which the Government has held up to the country as being something it has been working towards.
Dome Petroleum is a company on which the country has depended so much for its security of supply, and now the Minister of Finance is saying that his Government is prepared to make an exception and give away the resources of Dome Petroleum to foreign corporations. Would the Minister clarify this and state the Government's position clearly?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, in the case of Canada's energy policy, Canadianization is only one aspect of this policy. In fact I can inform the Hon. Member that since this Government came to power, the percentage has increased.


REPORTED REQUEST FOR TAX RULING BY TRANSCANADA PIPELINES
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance, when asked about the proposed sale of Dome Petroleum, said: "We would review the position that TransCanada puts before us if a tax ruling is involved". Why would the Minister of Finance have us believe he knew nothing about a tax ruling as proposed by TransCanada PipeLines, when negotiations between the federal Government and TransCanada regarding a tax ruling have been going on since early March?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is news to me. I am the Minister of Finance. The Hon. Member might have put that question to the Minister of National Revenue. I have not been involved in any discussions on a tax ruling and certainly I was not aware that those discussions or "negotiations", as the Hon. Member put it, were

April 14, 1987
Oral Questions
going on and had been going on for that long. I am not sure of that.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEE OF CANADIAN OWNERSHIP
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Dome Petroleum is now the largest owner of energy reserves in western Canada. If it falls into the control of a foreign corporation, it will automatically increase foreign ownership of this sector in Canada from 40 per cent to 50 per cent. Will the Minister guarantee to the House that Dome Petroleum will remain in Canadian hands?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, for the benefit of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, that we live in a free enterprise system in this country and that it is therefore up to Dome to consider, first of all, its responsibility to its employees and its shareholders.


ELECTION CAMPAIGN PROMISE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Minister that, for the New Democratic Party, Canada, as a nation, is not for sale no matter what the Tories might think.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I see that the Prime Minister is smiling. Since it was the Prime Minister who promised in the election campaign to make decisions in the Canadian interest in the energy sector will he live up to his promise and guarantee that Dome Petroleum will remain in Canadian hands? That is the issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that the Leader of the New Democratic Party has aided and abetted the Liberal Party in its attempts to socialize Canada's energy industry, and we have seen the problems this has caused, especially for Dome. In this respect, I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that so far, Canada's present energy policy has been instrumental in increasing the proportion of Canadianization in the industry.


John Edward Broadbent: And now the Minister wants to sell the biggest corporation in the industry in Canada, in the west. That is something we in the New Democratic Party cannot accept.


REQUEST THAT DECISION BE TAKEN BY CABINET AND JUSTIFIED IN HOUSE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my last question to the Minister is as follows: This decision may cost the taxpayer $2.4 billion. Can the Minister guarantee the decision will be one that is made by Cabinet, and that Cabinet will justify that decision before the House?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has nothing to sell as far as Dome is concerned because he does not own Dome Petroleum. So I think we should get this quite clear: the Government is not putting Dome up for sale.
Second, the Hon. Member is well aware of Dome's financial difficulties. If he is at all interested in Canada's energy policy and in the people employed by Dome, he should emulate the Government by securing our gas and energy reserves and protecting the jobs of the people working for Dome.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the takeover of Canadian Pacific Airlines by Pacific Western Airlines. This particular takeover was endorsed and approved by the Prime Minister's Government. We now know that 3,000 jobs may be lost as a result of it. Most of these jobs are in western Canada.
Why did the Prime Minister's Government approve this takeover when he knew, or ought to have known, that it was not in the public interest, and when he knew, or ought to have known, that 3,000 jobs may be lost?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman as usual is quite inaccurate in what he says. This takeover of Canadian Pacific by Pacific Western had to go to the Canadian Transport Commission which dealt with the question of whether or not it was in the public interest. It found it to be in the public interest. I would take the view and the opinion of a quasi-judicial tribunal that does not deal in rhetoric but in fact, in logic and rational application of the law to the facts, over the hon. gentleman's opinion any day in the week.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEMORANDUM PROJECTING JOB LOSSES
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with opinion; we are dealing with fact.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 14, 1987


An Hon. Member:: That's your problem.


John V. Nunziata: I have a confidential memo here-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: Conservative Members may laugh but 3,000 jobs will be lost.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John V. Nunziata: I have a memo from Martha Hynna who is the Executive Director of Employment Services at the Department of Employment and Immigration. It is to Mr. John Edwards, the Associate Deputy Minister and ViceChairman. This particular memo dated March 25 confirms that up to 3,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the takeover and that the effective date of the lay-offs will be approximately July 1, 1987. I go back to the Prime Minister and hope he will have the guts to stand up and answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: I would like to ask the Prime Minister why he approved this particular takeover when he knew, or ought to have known, that it was not in the public interest, when he knew that 3,000 jobs would be lost, that 3,000 families would be devastated, and that most of these jobs are in western Canada. If he is truly concerned about western Canadians, why did he approve this particular takeover?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it does not take much in the way of guts to stand up to a blowfly.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I gather from the way that the hon. gentleman puts his question that the policy of the Liberal Party would be to interfere in every commercial transaction in the country that might possibly involve the loss of a job. If that is the policy of the members of the Liberal Party then I hope they will explain it to the business sector from which the Leader of the Opposition came, since it is the first time it has ever heard it suggested that that might be the policy of the Liberal Party led by the Hon. Member from Vancouver-wherever-it-is, who recently left there to go somewhere else.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions FINANCE


DOME PETROLEUM TAX CREDITS-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT DECISION ON POSSIBLE TAKEOVER
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Considering that Dome's $2.4 billion in tax credits is most probably the largest single tax break in Canadian history-and there is no doubt that it will have major revenue implications for us all- will the Minister not assure us that the final decision will be made by Cabinet and justified in the House of Commons, rather than a decision being made by a few officials in Revenue Canada? Can he give us that assurance?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should check the "blues". I believe he said $22.4 billion, I think he meant $2.4 billion.


John Edward Broadbent: He said $2.4 billion.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would like to understand where the Hon. Member is coming from. He and his Leader seem to be at odds on this issue. The Leader of the New Democratic Party seems to be concerned about a non-resident taking over Dome Petroleum. The Hon. Member for Regina East seems to be concerned about tax dollars being given to a Canadian company to take it over. I am not sure where the New Democratic Party is on this issue.


John Edward Broadbent: You should be able to master it, Michael.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to explain.


REQUEST THAT DECISION BE MADE BY GOVERNMENT
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. We have two concerns. The first is that a Canadian company take over Dome and that those resources remain in Canadian hands. Our second concern is with respect to a matter of public accountability.
It is true that Dome is a private company. However, there is a great deal of public interest at stake in this decision. There is a major public revenue implication in it. We would like an assurance that this decision will be made by Cabinet and not by officials in Revenue Canada, and that the decision made by Cabinet be justified to Parliament so that there is public accountability for the loss of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is talking about a tax ruling, tax rulings are made on a regular basis. They are clarifications of tax laws. They are a responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister of Finance is not involved in them.

April 14, 1987
Oral Questions
Again, I come back to the question here, which way is the New Democratic Party going? Does it want to have a Canadian company buy Dome? Does it want to have no support go to that Canadian company? Or does it want to nationalize Dome Petroleum? Which is it? Come clean. Let us know. We would like to know where the NDP stands on this issue.


REQUEST THAT DECISION NOT BE MADE BY BUREAUCRATS
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear to the Minister that we want the resources to be developed by a Canadian company and that we want accountability. I know of no way in which I could make our policy more clear to the Minister.
Will the Minister not give us the assurance that a decision of such magnitude on public revenue will be made by elected officials in Cabinet rather than by bureaucrats in the Department of Revenue? Surely he appreciates the significance of this, and the difference between regular decisions made by Revenue Canada and one which has such magnitude of importance to the public interest. Surely he recognizes the difference.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking hypothetical questions. As I indicated in my previous response, the Department of Finance does not make tax rulings. Those are made by officials in the Department of National Revenue because they are clarifications of the Income Tax Act as it stands. The ruling is to clarify the tax law, and that happens on a regular basis.
If the Hon. Member stops to think about what he is saying he will realize that his suggestion would result in this Parliament being totally swamped with tax rulings, day in and day out.


John Edward Broadbent: What's $2.5 billion?


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and is with regard to the failure of the Government so far to implement the Canada-Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement. There are five northern Manitoba Indian bands which are awaiting fresh, clean drinking water, and the appropriate and necessary sewage disposal systems.
When will the foot-dragging come to an end? When will the Government of Canada honour its obligations under the Canada-Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that discussions are taking place between counsel for the bands flooded in northern Manitoba and officials in the Department of Northern Affairs and Indian Development. Those discussions will continue.
As the Hon. Member is aware, there has been a commitment made that potable drinking water will be provided to the reserves in this fiscal year under the fiscal framework within which we have to work. We are having discussions on how it can be put in place. In addition, as the Hon. Member is fully aware, there are some areas involved in northern Manitoba where the provision of infrastructures such as sewage lines is well nigh impossible because of the places where the villages are built.


MINISTER'S LETTER TO NORTHERN FLOOD COMMITTEE PRESIDENT
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, on December 22, 1986, the Minister wrote to Chief Rodney Spence, President of the Northern Flood Committee. In that letter he promised "to accelerate the implementation of the water and sewer systems within the five communities".
Will the Minister explain to the House why his foot is on the brake rather than on the accelerator?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that the member who has a concern in these matters, which 1 and all Members of the House recognize and share, does not recognize that he was part of a Government which implemented agreements without any plan, without identification of dollars, and without-


B. Keith Penner: It's $57 million.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member is saying it is only $7 million.


B. Keith Penner: It is $57 million.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Okay, $57 million.


B. Keith Penner: Where is it?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Now he is saying, "Where is it?" We have had discussions. An agreement was drafted and signed by the Government which he represented which did not provide for implementation. These discussions are provided for in the agreement. That is what the negotiations are about, Mr. Speaker.
April 14, 1987


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. His Department knows about planned lay-offs of thousands of employees due to the CP Air-PWA takeover. Since it is obvious that the employers have failed to notify their employees or their unions, will the Minister of Employment and Immigration notify these employees and their unions about what is in store for them? What plans does he have to take care of them?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman refers to some lay-offs which are going to occur as a result of the proposed amalgamation of CP and Pacific Western. There has been no notice given that any number approaching thousands will be affected. If they are, all the resources of the Government which are open to people who are laid off will certainly be made available to them, and the provisions of their collective agreements will certainly be put into effect.
We would urge the new company composed of Pacific Western and Canadian Pacific to treat generously and humanely those employees who may have to be laid off. However, there has been no indication that any number of the size to which the Hon. Member is referring are to be laid off.


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT DEALING WITH SUCCESSOR RIGHTS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Transport speaks for employment, fisheries, and a few other things, I will direct a question to him. Freedom to Move, deregulation started by the Liberals and being carried out by the Tories, promised not only more competition but more jobs.
Therefore, would he now agree, as a matter of government policy, either to move an amendment himself or accept an amendment to Bill C-18, such as was turned down this morning in committee, which would ensure that in cases of mergers, takeovers, and operating agreements, successor rights are dealt with and settled by the parties involved before a new licence to operate or a new certificate is issued?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question for the hon. gentleman yesterday in committee and am prepared to answer the question for the hon. gentleman again today in the House, although he is occupying the House with questions which have already been asked in committee.
The answer is that we have legislation under the jurisdiction of Labour Canada which applies to companies which operate under federal jurisdiction. That law will continue to apply to federal companies and there is, therefore, no need for any special provisions in the Freedom to Move legislation for that purpose. It is working.
Oral Questions HARBOURFRONT


MORATORIUM ON TORONTO WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and relates to the Harbour-front property in Metro Toronto. Due to the great concerns of residents of the area and the people of Metropolitan Toronto in general relating to the development and planning process of the City of Toronto, the residents welcomed the Minister's announcement of a freeze and a review of the site. However, they would like to know from the Minister exactly what has been frozen.
Has all of the development been frozen or only part of it? How does the Minister intend to enforce that freeze since at the moment construction is going on without the benefit of building permits? Will the Minister allow public input of residents into the review process?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, a review of the objectives of the Harbourfront corporation is now under way. In the interim, a moratorium has been imposed on all development. Clarification on which particular projects have been affected will be given within the next 30 days.
One of the ingredients of the review is to ensure that there is adequate public representation, the opportunity for citizens and appropriate groups to give their views. The mechanics have not yet been crystallized but we will issue a statement in that regard.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. As the Minister knows, on Friday the Manitoba Sugar Company announced the closing of its plant which, if carried through, will mean the end of the sugar-beet industry in the Province of Manitoba and will affect 500 or 600 jobs in that province alone.
The Manitoba Minister of Agriculture said in the Legislature yesterday that there had been no new discussions between the federal and provincial Governments since the announcement, and yesterday I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he would undertake to talk with that Minister to see if negotiations could be resumed before the decision was carried out.
Has the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board been in touch with his provincial counterpart? Is there an

April 14, 1987
Oral Questions
intention to start negotiations before the date-line of Thursday so that there can be some resolution of the problem before the sugar-beet industry of Manitoba is put to an end?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a matter of concern to all of us, especially those of us in the House who represent Manitobans.
We believe we have put a reasonable offer on the table. Mr. Uruski, the provincial Minister in Manitoba, is in receipt of a letter from myself to which he has not yet replied. We believe the offer is reasonable.
Evidence of that fact is that everybody has accepted it- both growers' associations in Manitoba and Alberta, and the Province of Alberta. We would very much like to see Manitoba take a very serious look at it and, if it has some problems with it, come forward with a proposition with which we could deal in line with what the Hon. Member suggested, that is, to see that that important industry survives in Manitoba.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, there is no doubt that both sides, the federal and provincial Governments, have taken a position. However, if they talked to the people of Manitoba, they would say: "Get the problem resolved before Thursday, before we lose this industry".


REQUEST THAT FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL MINISTERS MEET
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as a special appeal on behalf of the people of Manitoba, will the Minister take the initiative, call the Minister of Agriculture in Manitoba, and arrange to have a special meeting to see whether before Thursday there can be some way of resolving the differences and coming to an agreement which will meet the objectives of both sides, before we lose a very important industry and hundreds or close to thousands of jobs in that province? I think the Minister could show some generosity and take that initiative.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter, and the federal Government takes it very seriously. It is a difficult time in agriculture. We need to do everything we can to diversify, to see that there are as many crops grown as there possibly can be grown.
We are awaiting a reply to the letter which I sent to Mr. Uruski. I will certainly take the Hon. Member's suggestion seriously to see whether there are some things we can do in order to break the log-jam.
We find it very unfortunate, from the position of the provincial Government in Manitoba, that it simply uses this issue as a means to point the finger at the federal Government. We are willing to negotiate. We believe we have a reasonable offer on the table. We would very much like to proceed with those negotiations on a reasonable basis to see that the situation is resolved.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister promised to review the issue of whether the $354,000 mortgage loan that was granted by the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport on investment property in downtown Ottawa-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You will never learn.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is in some difficulty, and I would just ask that Hon. Members be patient.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-whether that constituted-


Some Hon. Members:: Hold on.


Mr. Speaker:: I very much regret to advise the Hon. Member that, in view of the fact that the questions asked yesterday to which the Hon. Member has just referred were the subject of protracted debate on a question of privilege this morning, I am reluctantly going to rule those questions out of order for today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Spadina.


Mr. Heap:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: And Ed Broadbent is behind him.


Marcel Masse: The Leader is behind him.


Mr.   de Corneille@: Let's have some decency.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Spadina.


IMMIGRATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. By the lawyer's letter which I sent him today as notice of this question, the Minister knows that he violated Section 23(4) of the Immigration Act by his February 20 telex which ordered immigration officers to return most refugee claimants to the United States to wait weeks or months for an inquiry into whether they can enter Canada.
Therefore, will the Minister immediately rescind the illegal telex of February 20 and now issue new instructions that comply with the law which was adopted by Parliament in 1978 and is still in force today?
April 14, 1987


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. We do not turn everyone away at the border. Our officials use discretion. Of the 1,126 claimants who have come to the borders of Ontario and Quebec since February 23, 776 were asked to await a hearing before an adjudicator in the United States, but 350 were allowed to enter. That is over 30 per cent.


PROVISIONS OF STATUTE
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that most refugee claimants are turned back, and the Minister has confirmed that by saying that a majority were turned back.
I am referring to the violation of the statute which says that officers may exercise their discretion, as compared to the telex which says that these people are to be sent back.
Therefore I ask the Minister: Will he respect the legislation of Parliament and now recall all those refugee claimants who were illegally turned away since February 20?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the member refers to a letter by an immigration lawyer that asks for information which requires legal interpretation. I have asked my officials to look into it. I assure the member that I will get back to him as soon as we have the information.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-EFFECT ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The President of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce said yesterday that he fears Canada's financial services are being bargained away during the current free trade talks with the United States. He said:
We must not bargain away our strengths in an industry generating large
amounts of foreign exchange for our country. Granting unbridled access to our
domestic market in financial services could well reverse the flow.
What is the current status in the free trade negotiations of financial institutions, particularly the Government's position in respect of free access of U.S. financial institutions to the Canadian market?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the position which the Chairman of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce has set out. We have a very important industry, an industry which gives us access to all parts of the world and assists in foreign trade as well as in the flows of capital.
We have no intention whatsoever of bargaining away the positions which the Hon. Member has suggested. We are going
Oral Questions
to be taking a tough position on how we deal with this, and I think the Hon. Member will find that out as time progresses.


FREE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS-STOCKBROKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, since we have no idea what is going to happen to our financial institutions in the free trade negotiations with the United States, would the Minister of Finance not agree that the time is badly chosen to allow American companies to buy up to 50 per cent interest in stockbrokerage firms, considering that no decision has been made and that American companies are allowed to buy Canadian firms, up to 50 per cent before June 30, and up to 100 per cent after June 30, 1988? Why not wait for the outcome of these negotiations before allowing Americans to take over our stockbrokerage firms?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, that policy was laid down on December 18. It was made absolutely clear that the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario were moving together with regard to the wishes expressed by the financial industry, the banks, and the investment community.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


Raymond Garneau: So you let them go to the United States.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: If the Liberals would just be quiet for a minute, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr.   de Corneille@: Shame.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Sanctimonious.


John Napier Turner: Get out of the pulpit.


Mr. Speaker:: I might suggest to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill that I might get further extending his request than he will.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. Given that the Minister yesterday initiated what could be quite a useful debate about Canada's energy options, depending on the process and who the Minister intends to involve, can he make a commitment to the House today that in the meantime, until this debate about

April 14, 1987
Oral Questions
future energy options for Canada is completed, the Government will not be considering any grant, loan or policy decision that would permit the construction of a Lepreau II nuclear reactor in New Brunswick?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that during this period when Canadians generally will be able to discuss the energy issues which are basic for the existence and future of this country, the Government has no intention whatsoever to defer decisions concerning major projects. This representation was made by all provinces last January, and again today by interested groups that are advocating projects to ensure Canada's energy security.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources telling the House-it sounds like he is- that the Government is considering negotiating with New Brunswick with respect to federal moneys for the construction of the Lepreau II? Is it the case that a Government which, in 1979 and in 1984 promised a full inquiry into the nuclear industry, is now prepared to go ahead with the construction of a new nuclear reactor before having any kind of debate about energy, nuclear or otherwise in this country?


Marcel Masse: Unlike the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, this Government is not bent on overly centralizing Canada, and we acknowledge the existence of the provinces and their responsibility in the field of energy. It is up to the Government of New Brunswick to decide whether or not its territory and its citizens are seeking an increase in the electricity sector. It is up to them to decide how these needs are going to be met, be it with coal, nuclear energy, or imports of Quebec hydro-electric power. The New Brunswick Government has not yet made this choice.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise Hon. Members that we are a little over time. There will be one more question from the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, and one government question, and that will conclude Question Period. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie).


SOLIGAZ PROJECT IN MONTREAL EAST-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It deals with the delay in the National Energy Board making decisions on the application by Interprovincial Pipe Line to convert the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline to the transport of national gas liquids. My question to the Minister is this: Can the Minister give the reasons for the delays that have postponed for a year the start-up on the Soligaz project in eastern Montreal, which will create many jobs, and can he reassure people concerning the application by Esso Imperial to reverse the pipeline's flow from Montreal to Sarnia, in order to save the 17,000 jobs in Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the oil transport infrastructure in Canada is currently under review, as requested by the Quebec Minister of Energy at the federal-provincial meeting. That analysis is therefore being discussed between the Ministers of Energy of the two levels of Government, until the report is made public. I also want to point out to the Hon. Member that no change in the basic operation of a pipeline in Canada can be made without a hearing and a decision by the NEB. For the time being, no such application has been filed.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF PETROMONT'S FUTURE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Minister did not answer the question. What people would like to know is the reasons why the National Energy Board is delaying its decision to save Petromont, to ensure that the Soligaz project in Eastern Montreal is installed, that a number of jobs are created. People would like to have the assurance from the Minister rather than the National Energy Board, they would like to know whether he will turn down the application by Esso Imperial to reverse the flow of oil to the Ontario refineries, which would eliminate Petromont and the 17,000 Quebec jobs.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, since the representation is directed to the National Energy Board, I will be pleased to pass it on to the Board and to inform you of their answer.
April 14, 1987


REPORTED INCREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC NUCLEAR RADIATION
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Reports this morning from West German nuclear emission monitoring stations indicate an unusual increase in atmospheric radiation which could be caused by a nuclear leak in the U.S.S.R.
In light of the tragedy at Chernobyl and fears that another Soviet nuclear disaster could be in the making, will the Minister tell the House what information he has received on these reports and what steps he will take to ensure that Canadians are fully informed of developments as they occur?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Hon. Member's question, I cannot confirm anything at this moment. We are obviously aware of the press stories coming out of western Europe from West German sources and Swedish sources, just to name two. We are checking very intensely at this point to see whether any of these press lines can be confirmed and, if so, what their background is. I want to assure the Hon. Member, the House, and Canadians generally that if any information comes to my attention, I will release it immediately, as the Government of Canada did in the Chernobyl incident.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
* *
*


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent to revert to Motions for the express purpose of moving a motion having to do with the extension of the provisional rules. There have been the usual discussions. With your permission, I would move:
That, notwithstanding any previous orders of the House, all current Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders, as extended by the House on December 18, 1986, be further extended to May 29, 1987; and that all other sessional and special orders relating thereto also be extended to May 29, 1987.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Let us proceed with some order. The Government House Leader asked for unanimous consent to revert to Motions for a specific purpose. That, as far as I know, has not yet been given, however the Government House Leader has read the motion. This is very important to many of us. Let us have orderly procedures.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) have unanimous consent to introduce his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: For that purpose only.
Motions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, notwithstanding any previous orders of the House all the current
permanent and provisional standing orders, as extended by the House on
December 18, 1986, be further extended to May 29, 1987; that all other
sessional and special orders related thereto also be extended to May 29, 1987.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think we should debate for a few minutes. I will not abuse the time of the House. The Government House Leader knows that I want to put a question to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), which deals with a ruling made by the Chair this morning. This is important to many of us and has great impact on the proceedings of the House.
There is not one Member in the House who is unaware that this morning the Speaker made a ruling that the use of dilatory motions during Routine Proceedings needs to be examined by the House because there are gray areas in the use of those motions. We require some definite and clear undertakings as to what is meant. I had intended to ask the Hon. Member for Peace River, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, if he would give the House his undertaking that as chairman of the committee he would deal with Mr. Speaker's ruling concerning dilatory motions with a view to looking at the impact, effect and consequences of that ruling on our procedures so that we will all have a clear and distinct knowledge of how the House operates. That is basically my argument, that since we cannot appeal your rulings, Mr. Speaker, we must depend on a set of rules that is clear to all of us.
This is not Britain, this is Canada. We have a Constitution and we have Standing Orders. They are known to all of us and they are used by all of us. However, if the Speaker has discretion to do certain things of which I am not aware, I am put in a difficult position. That is the point I would like to make to the chairman of the Standing Committee. I think it is imperative that he convene the committee, study the ruling made by the Speaker this morning concerning dilatory motions during Routine Proceedings and report to the House what Hon. Members feel should be done about the ruling. I would invite the Hon. Member for Peace River to give me that

April 14, 1987
Motions
assurance. At that time, I would have no hesitation in giving my approval to the proposal of the government House Leader that we extend the Provisional Standing Orders for a few more weeks. I would hope that the House Leader would come to us with some meaningful changes in the next seven or eight weeks dealing with certain things in the committee's last report which we have all found urgent and pressing.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it should be made clear that when an all-Party agreement to extend the provisional orders was sought, it was sought not on the basis of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure dealing with the subject matter just raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). It may or may not be a good idea for the committee to look at that particular subject; it probably is a good idea. It is a good idea for the Standing Committee to look at anything that is a matter of controversy in the House. However, the origin of the extension of the provisional rules lies in the fact that there was not enough time between the time the committee charged with reviewing those Provisional Standing Orders reported and the time for the expiry of those provisional orders on April 16 for the House Leaders to get together and respond.
Because I am a member of that committee, I want to make my understanding clear as I participate in the unanimous consent that will be required to pass the motion. We are giving the House Leaders time to study the report of the committee so that they can then decide what they will do about the Provisional Standing Orders when the new expiry date of May 29 arrives. All other matters are matters which will be referred in the course of ordinary parliamentary time, either by the Speaker, by the House or by the committee itself, to the committee. I think it should be perfectly clear that, without questioning the merit of what has been raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, it is a matter separate from the reasons for agreeing to an extension of the provisional rules.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) addressed this point because that is exactly the point I intended to make.
Notwithstanding the good intentions of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I think we are simply extending the time period so that the House Leaders can have more time to deal not only with the report of the Standing Committee but indeed with the work that has been done by the House Leaders themselves.
I think today's ruling is an indication that there are some flaws we must address. The fact is that a lot of work has been done. This has not been treated idly. I know that on both a formal and an informal basis, the House Leaders and their support staff have been working on it. We now have the report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure which will be incorporated into that work. We are simply asking for a period of time that we can utilize effectively to address some of the obvious imperfections we have detected over the course of the last few months. Hopefully we
will be able to incorporate them into more permanent Standing Orders which will govern the conduct of the House for the duration of this Parliament. I do not wish to prolong the debate on this issue. I think the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill has put the whole issue into focus.
[ Translation]


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the comments which the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) has just made.
On this side of the House, we have no objection to extending the provisional Standing Orders up to May 29. However, we would like to be assured that during that period, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure will be considered in the House.
The report was unanimously agreed to by members of all Parties. That report includes a host of improvements to our Standing Orders. And since the Deputy Prime Minister has just stated, to use his own words-

-hopefully we will be able to incorporate the report. I would like him to be a bit more precise and to tell us that the Government will bring about, between now and May 29, a debate in concurrence on the report of the committee.
The bottom of page 8 of the report of the committee indicates that the committee has dealt with the Provisional Standing Orders and the committee recommends that the Provisional Standing Orders adopted on February 13, 1986, with the modifications set out in Appendix "A" of the report, be made permanent. In other words, the committee would like this report to be concurred in.
I would like to have the assurance of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) that his Party will support a unanimous report of the Standing Committee. The majority of the members of that committee are from his Party including the chairman who is very honest, straightforward and nonpartisan. Nevertheless, the participants on the committee from the NDP and the Liberal Party including myself agreed with the suggestions in this report, including the suggestion for a better and more viable way to operate legislative committees. It was recommended that a system of six legislative committees be adopted. I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to react on behalf of the Government and to tell us if the Government can live with the recommendations of this report.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we have just received the report. At first glance, some of the proposals make obvious good sense. There are some areas with which we have concern, but this is a matter that will be discussed at some length with the other House Leaders.
This is a matter that does not simply involve the Government, but it involves as well the support and co-operation of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party and the House Leader of the Liberal Party. This is so, notwithstanding the fact that this is a recommendation of a committee which
April 14, 1987

was composed of members of all Parties. The Elouse Leaders may very well have different points of view on fine tuning and changes. We will certainly look at it and try to incorporate in a co-operative and collective manner its proposals, as best we can. That would be as far as I could go at this particular time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Elouse has heard the terms of the motion of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Mazankowski) agreed to.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 31, 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 third time and passed.
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, when we last debated this Bill on March 31, I was attempting to make a number of points about what has happened to Canagrex. I want to follow up on those thoughts.
I think it was a real mistake for the Government to take this step of eliminating Canagrex. It was put in place to deal with exactly the kind of situation we have found ourselves in over the last two to three years. Canagrex was born out of the neglect of the Department of External Affairs to put in place a structure which would allow the sale and export of certain agricultural products.
Over the eight months it was in place Canagrex did a commendable job. It surveyed producers to determine the products available for export. It started negotiations with producers here in Canada and purchasers abroad. It set up a structure which would have seen a considerable expansion of agricultural exports. It started a buyer credit guarantee program which, had it the time, would have worked out very well. Canagrex agreed to share a certain amount of the risk involved in providing credit to a purchaser buying agricultural commodities from Canada. The guarantee was provided when it was deemed absolutely necessary for the sale to go ahead. I suppose the most important fact about Canagrex is that it was well planned. It had a very good corporate image around the world and had developed a reputation for being aggressive but fair.
When the Government decided to eliminate Canagrex it was supposed to put in place a structure which would work as well
Canagrex
as or better than Canagrex. However, Canagrex was eliminated before that was done. The situation now is that no one seems to have the responsibility for doing the same things that Canagrex was attempting to do. Consequently, instead of developing our agricultural exports over the last two to three years, we have had a continual downgrading or slippage in the amount of those exports.
Of course, we have done well in the sale of those agricultural products we have traditionally sold. The Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) will stand up and tell you we have sold more grain over this last year than we have for many years. He is quite correct. However, he will not tell you that we sold it at a much lower price than we have ever sold it before.
The Department of External Affairs can show you a list of 22 officers in our embassies abroad who have some responsibility for agricultural products. Seven of those people have been seconded from the Department of Agriculture. The Department tells us that there are positions accounting for 73 person-years with some responsibility for the sale of agricultural products. I would point out that Canagrex had that core of people available on a full-time basis.
However, these people in the Department of External Affairs, located in places like Nigeria, Algeria, Brazil, Australia, England, France and Germany, are commercial officers with responsibilities other than simply agricultural sales. I have here a list of 22 officers in the Department of External Affairs who are identified as international agri-food trade development officers. However, some of them are First Secretaries or Second Secretaries. Some of them are Counsellors. In other words, they have other duties. They do not have a great deal of responsibility for the sale of agricultural products. Consequently, the net effect of the elimination of Canagrex has been to reduce the amount of sales that we could have had to those countries.
Canagrex also went into countries we had not dealt with before in order to make sales. With the elimination of Canagrex we do not have anyone dealing with those countries. I would also point out that none of the positions which External Affairs is now designating as having some responsibility for agricultural sales were created because of the demise of Canagrex. The situation now is that the job of assisting the small producer has been splintered among the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, DRIE, and the EDC. These groups cannot provide the assistance and information that Canagrex did.
All in all, the real efforts Canagrex made to provide service to agricultural exporters have been lost. No money was allocated and no personnel were appointed to help those exporters when Canagrex was eliminated.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question. My riding in east central Saskatchewan is very rural

April 14, 1987
Canagrex
and has many farmers. There is a lot of concern about the farm economy in the part of the province from which I come, particularly in view of the Farm Bill in the United States and the tremendous subsidies on the export of grain, as well as the European Common Market subsidy program for their farmers and the export of grain from the European Common Market.
I realize that grain sales come under the auspices of the Canadian Wheat Board and Canagrex had no role in grain sales, however, since grain sales are now down in price, although not in volume, many farmers in my area are considering a switch to other crops. Lentils, peas and other crops are now being produced in the Yorkton-Melville area. Since we have not produced many of these crops before, we are trying to break into markets in different parts of the world where Canada has not had markets before. Therefore, there is great concern about the abolition of Canagrex because it was an agency that provided an opportunity to hustle in world markets.
The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) sits on the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Since Canagrex has been abolished, can he tell us what alternative there is for the farmer in Norquay where, according to an article in the Norquay North Star, farmers are sowing several hundred acres of peas? Those farmers are very concerned that there be a market for those peas. What is the alternative for the farmer in Norquay in terms of a guarantee that when he takes land away from the wheat because of the U.S. Farm Bill he will have a market for the peas that he sows?
What is the Government doing to replace the potential vacuum created by the abolition of Canagrex since it may have been able to find a lot of markets for peas around the world? What is it doing to make sure that the farmer in Norquay, for example, can sell those peas?
I see that my friend, the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), is smiling. I think I could even see him nodding his head that he probably agrees with me. He comes from a part of Manitoba where I believe there is the production of sugar-beets and many other commodities.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Almost everything.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: His area has more versatility in production than much of the Prairies. I know that many people in his area are concerned about whether there is a way to promote these exports around the world. This is a very important question when one considers the protectionism in the United States, western Europe, Japan and other parts of the world.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Canagrex had a staff of approximately 70. When it was closed I asked the exact questions posed by the Hon. Member. What will replace Canagrex? In a survey of all the External Affairs posts, Agriculture Canada determined that the number of people who would be devoted to agriculture and commercial promotion was the equivalent of 73 person years. I point out that those 73 person years already existed in addition to those people at Canagrex who were working in this
field. For example, anyone looking for a market in Algiers would contact the second secretary in Algiers and work with him. Canagrex had personnel in the field, but no one replaced them when Canagrex was eliminated.
1 also asked what kind of assistance there is for the vetting of contracts to provide assistance to small exporters. The answer was that one could not go to an agency that would do the work or provide the assistance, but had to go to External Affairs or Agriculture Canada or an agency such as the Export Development Corporation, or even to the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. In other words, one would have to visit several Departments because there was no particular agency to help with such work.
1 also asked if the underwriting of transportation costs was available since the dissolution of Canagrex. The Department of External Affairs said that it does not provide the transportation service, underwriting transportation costs or arranging transportation services, which I had suggested in my question. It only facilitates transportation services by advising the potential shippers which carriers may meet their needs. One must find the market and the method of shipping the product by oneself because nothing has been put in place to replace the service.
I received the same answer to all those questions which I put in the committee. Although the response is that there is something in place, the fact is that those things already existed. The idea of Canagrex as an agency which could assist in selling these products more easily was not enhanced at all.
We sell many leaf cutter bees, mostly to Russia. Each producer who wants to sell leaf cutter bees must find their own carrier and must deal with each agency involved. Previously, all this was done by Canagrex.
[ Translation]


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to rise and deal with this Act to dissolve Canagrex. I wish the House were debating a more pleasant subject, like the creation of Canagrex, but we cannot expect anything perfect from a Conservative Government, because perfect and conservative are terms which just don't go together. The Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) is certainly well aware that it is impossible to reconcile them; knowing that she is a newcomer to that political party she probably has much difficulty accepting conservative points of view, which is understandable, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate this afternoon some of the reasons why this Conservative Government is wrong to dissolve Canagrex. First of all, as you will certainly remember, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party have made several promises during the last election campaign. As a matter of fact, I remember quite well having brought this matter to your attention on a couple of occasions in the past. I have here a document entitled Trois cent trente-huit promesses which lists the 338 promises which the Conservative Party have made,
April 14, 1987

and I invite all our listeners who wants a copy to write to me. No postage is necessary. But there was no mention, in these 338 promises that the Progressive Conservative Party would axe Canagrex. Nothing was said about it during the election campaign.
I am asking the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark): Why do the Conservatives seek to abolish Canagrex when they did not even talk about it during the last electoral campaign. Why do away with Canagrex? That is what I am asking all Conservative Members in this House. If I am not given an answer, Mr. Speaker, it is because there is none, it is totally unreasonable. The truth is, Conservatives have this rightist bias and they do not want to see a Crown corporation whose role would be to market agricultural commodities. It is a kind of interference with their very, very, very conservative principles.
Do not think for one minute, Mr. Speaker, that I am the only one who does not want to abolish the Canagrex Corporation, or that I would be so partisan as to merely disagree with the Conservatives opposite on no other principle than the fact that I want to disagree with them. But 1 know you do not think that, Mr. Speaker, because you are far too reasonable.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I do.


Don Boudria: I have in my hand a brief presented by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I invite the Minister to listen to what it says, and I will read it slowly so he will understand it all. The brief is dated October, 1986, and is entitled Ontario Federation of Agriculture Brief to Cabinet. I am sure the Minister must have read this brief, should have read it, or at least he should have had someone read it to him. The brief recommends under "Marketing" that the Government, commodity groups and farm organizations intensify their efforts to improve commodity marketing.
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture wants us to increase our efforts in marketing, but what is the Tory Government doing? It is abolishing the very organization that was created to improve marketing on an international level. The Government has almost a fetish about abolishing this Crown corporation. I ask why? We know that Canagrex was created by Bill C-85, which was presented some years ago. I say to the Conservatives opposite that the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), as Tory opposition critic in those days-as he will be again-said right in this House that he favoured Bill C-85, a Bill to establish the Canagrex Corporation to market on behalf of the people of Canada, and on behalf of the Government, agricultural commodities on an international basis.
What has happened to change the minds of all these Tories? What has happened to change the mind of the Minister of Agriculture and, more particularly, what has happened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who introduced this measure not as an agricultural initiative-obviously he could
Canagrex
not because it had no agricultural merit-but as a budgetary initiative, cutting off agriculture as a deficit-cutting measure? Can you imagine that being done, Mr. Speaker, by a Party which made all kinds of promises to the farmers of Canada?
I have a series of newspaper clippings and I would like to read some of them because they are very important. The first article is entitled "Canagrex axing criticized by Epp".


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: By whom?


Don Boudria: It says "by Epp". I quote:
The Chairman of the Ontario Soy-Bean Growers Marketing Board has criticized the federal Government for its disbanding of Canagrex, the Crown corporation created by the previous Liberal Government-
Peter Epp, speaking at an information meeting for Area B in eastern Ontario recently-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Oh, Peter Epp.


Don Boudria: Mr. Epp said this and it is important.
-said Canagrex had started to make inroads in the marketing of soy beans abroad, particularly in Egypt.
Mr. Epp very clearly said that he was against the dissolution of Canagrex. I ask Conservative Members opposite, particularly the Minister for National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), how they could possibly not realize and take notice of what Mr. Epp was saying to them? I have some difficulty in understanding that, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to read another article written by Barry Wilson, a well know and respected western reporter. He said on February 28:
A quiet tug of war has developed within the federal Government over which department will fill the food export gap created by the dismantling of Canagrex.
Agriculture Minister John Wise says the Crown corporation will be replaced by expanding the market development directorate of Agriculture Canada.
The department has asked for expanded budget and hiring authority for the unit.
Meanwhile, officials in the trade section of the external affairs department are arguing that the promotion of food trade should fall within their jurisdiction.
That is typically Tory, is it not, Mr. Speaker? I hear the Hon. Member opposite saying, of course it is typically Tory, no one seems to know what they are doing. We have two arms of the Government both claiming that they would be responsible for the export marketing of agricultural commodities. Of course, we know that what we do not need are those two other organizations pretending to do the job of Canagrex. What we need is Canagrex back in order to do the job it set out to do.
I say to Hon. Members opposite that the United States Government passed in December of 1985 the United States Food Security Act. It is affectionately known to us as the U.S. Farm Bill. Because of that piece of legislation, the most offensive piece of legislation ever passed against Canadian farmers, if there ever was a time we needed Canagrex, it is now. Even if we had not needed Canagrex the day the Minister of Finance made that erroneous statement on Black Thursday, November 8, 1984, in the House of Commons-and we did

April 14, 1987
Canagrex
need it then-we do now because of the U.S. Farm Bill. Deep down inside I am sure the Conservative Members of Parliament know better. They know we need Canagrex.
Very clearly, some well respected people in the agricultural community made their grievances known. I have a brief presented by A.E. Storey, who was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Canagrex, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture on March 11, 1985. He said in that brief that Canagrex was never given a chance. Canagrex had barely started and it was cut off by this Tory Government.


Mr. Lapierre:: Shame.


Don Boudria: Yes, it is a shame. I agree with the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) who put it so eloquently to the House. It is indeed terrible that the Government could not see further than that and that Tory Members opposite, the back-bench Members of the Conservative caucus, did not go to see the Minister of Finance and tell him: "We will have none of this. If you do not reinstate Canagrex we will cross the floor". If those Hon. Members had the proper intestinal fortitude, that is what they would have said to the Minister of Finance. He would have been told in no uncertain terms that that worthwhile corporation, Canagrex, should be re-established. Canagrex was given less than a year.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Eight months.


Don Boudria: Yes, eight months. Again, my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Shefford, is right. In those eight months it prepared a source list of Canadian commodities, what has been widely recognized as the most comprehensive available source of commodities available anywhere. It used this list to start selling around the world. It was doing a good job. Like any business, it had to be given a chance. It had to have a chance to start. One cannot just end a business a number of months after it is started and claim that it is not successful.
The other matter to consider is that Canagrex had a list of constraints that interfered with its original implementation. We have to remember that during the first few months of its existence Canagrex had some difficulty with existing government departments which did not always like to see its structure in place. There was also a lack of international recognition of the existence of the agency. Again, it had barely begun. Exporters sometimes saw Canagrex as part of the Government and did not initially trust the organization. But, again, those were all matters which were gradually coming around.
The fact that Canagrex was not provided with the same tools as some of the export agencies of other jurisdictions was also a problem. But it was no reason to kill Canagrex. It was a reason to enhance the program, to make it more viable and to make it more complete, ensuring that it would have better success on a world-wide basis.
Sitting across from me is the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, usually a very reasonable Member of Parliament. He was there when the officials of Canagrex came before the committee. I am sure that deep inside he is convinced, as I am, that the agency should have continued to operate. It would be thriving today, and the Hon. Member knows that, just as well as I do.
The Ontario Chicken Producers' Marketing Board sent a letter to the then Minister of Agriculture on January 18, 1983. The Ontario Chicken Producers' Marketing Board is important in the province I represent. I have a number of chicken producers in my riding, not as many as dairy producers, but there is still a significant number. I want to read to Hon. Members what the board had to say. The letter is addressed to the Hon. Eugene Whelan, the former Minister of Agriculture, and a great Minister he was. The letter states:
Please be advised that this local board endorses the passing of the Canagrex Bill.
While the Canadian Chicken Industry is not, at this time, involved in exporting chicken, there might be a market for Canadian chicken which would benefit the entire Canadian Chicken Industry.
Since Canada has the expertise and natural resources to supply off-shore markets with chicken products, a Federal Organization designed for this purpose will be of great help in bringing it about.
We can see that the Secretary-Manager of the Ontario Chicken Producers' Marketing Board, John Janzen, was indeed very much in favour of the establishment of this organization.
I could go on and present to Hon. Members a number of briefs and a number of letters endorsing the principles of Canagrex. I could even read to Hon. Members speeches given by Conservative Members of Parliament when they spoke on Bill C-85 some years ago who spoke in favour of the establishment of Canagrex. Yet today at this very crucial time when we are debating the third reading of the dismantling, the dismemberment of Canagrex, not one Conservative Member is willing to stand up for agriculture. Not one of them is willing to stand up and say: "I will fight for Canagrex because it is in the best interests of my constituents". We do not hear that anywhere in this Chamber. I say to the numerous Conservative Members listening to this speech in the House at the present time, that, indeed, they should be a little bit more serious about this topic and stand up for the people of the constituencies that they represent. They should say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that they want Canagrex to live again. They should tell him that they want it brought back from the ashes. The Government has tried to destroy it, and it is now left only in name. It is better late than never, I say to Conservative Members of Parliament.
That being said I invite members opposite to support me in defeating the measure that the Government wants to pass today. With the McGrath report now in place it is indeed appropriate for Conservative Members of Parliament to defeat a government measure such as this one. It will not bring down the Government. It will make the Minister of Finance redfaced, but he deserves that for not having been a little bit more
April 14, 1987

Canagrex



[Stage Direction]
responsible to the people. I do not blame the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin). He was not around while this measure was being undertaken. It is not his fault. Had he been the Minister of Finance, hopefully, he would have been more reasonable. However, he was not, and there is nothing we can do about that. He probably never will be because his Government will be turfed out of office before he gets a chance. That is unfortunate for him because he will never have a chance of really wielding the power in the Department of Finance. But I say to the Minister of State for Finance, the junior Minister of Finance, that I know that he who represents a riding in southwestern Ontario would want such an organization-he should want it-to survive because, indeed, it could be very important for the constituents of his area.
[Stage Direction]
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I invite members from both sides of the House to act in a non-partisan way, to act on behalf of the Canadian agriculture and to tell Canadian farmers that we are here to support them, while telling the Minister of Finance to stay put. We are the ones in charge, because we have been elected by the Canadian people. We have been elected precisely to ensure that the Canadian agriculture gets some help. The Conservative Party committed itself to helping the Canadian agriculture and to protecting the programs geared to farmers, and in particular such a good program as Canagrex, established by the Hon. Eugene Whelan, who will remain one of the best Ministers of Agriculture Canada ever had. Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to support what I have been saying and to defeat Bill C-2.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-National Defence- Proposed Saguenay shooting range-request for public hearings; The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)- Trade-Canada-United States negotiations-parliamentary debate on possible treaty; and the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)-Apartheid-South Africa- Prime Minister's scheduled Meeting with President of African National Congress.


CANAGREX DISSOLUTION ACT
[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 third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no questions and comments on the speech of the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about Canagrex and the Bill that is before the House today. This is a very important piece of legislation to me. I suppose I am one of those people in the House who mourns the passing of Canagrex. I thought it was very important to have such an agency in Canada to promote the sale of the farm commodities of people in my constituency and other constituencies. I think Members of the House should be aware that Canagrex was born out of a need to promote the export of farm commodities to every corner of the world. I was one of those Members in the House a few years ago who supported the proposition made by the former Minister of Agriculture, the man with the green stetson, Mr. Eugene Whelan. At that time I asked Mr. Whelan why it took so long for the Liberal Government to introduce a piece of legislation to give us Canagrex which would promote the export of agricultural products from this country to places around the world. Many other countries have similar agencies which aggressively promote the export of food products. We were behind in that respect.
I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that agriculture is the most important industry in this country. There is nothing more important to the world than the production of food. People around the world are dying of starvation by the hundreds of thousands every year. As we speak here in the House of Commons people are dying of starvation. There are young people and babies who do not get enough to eat.
I maintain that the problem is not a shortage of food. There is no such thing as a shortage of food. The problem is the distribution of food to the people who need it. We must come up with a mechanism for the distribution of food to the poor, hungry and starving. If we put half the imagination into that problem that we put into the production of nuclear arms and other things which are not necessary for life, we could wipe starvation from the face of the earth.
I realize that Canagrex would not have done all that, but it would have been one small tool for the exportation of our products to parts of the world where they could be used. In

April 14, 1987
Canagre x
addition to an agency like Canagrex we need a foreign aid program which would help the poor countries of the world become self-sufficient by exporting Canadian technology and know-how to other parts of the world.
In my own riding there are many farmers who have produced food for 20, 30 or 40 years. They are now in their sixties and want to retire. They have a good farming unit on which they owe no money. They can turn it over to a son, a daughter, or someone else and make a contribution in other parts of the world by helping people help themselves, by helping countries become self-sufficient in the production of food. That is the kind of role this country could be playing.
There are many farmers who have tremendous expertise as soil scientists and mechanics. There are farmers who know what kinds of crops to plant on certain land, how to plan crops, and proper harvesting procedures. They could give all kinds of advice to people in different parts of the world on how to become more productive. It is a tremendous waste of human potential and human resources not to have some of these people working with people in other parts of the world to increase their food production. If we had more imagination we could solve the problem of distribution of food.
As a wealthy country in the developed world all too often we import from Third World countries luxury crops grown on very productive lands which could be used to produce food. I think in particular of the good quality land which produces tobacco and cotton in various parts of the world. There are people starving in countries which produce those commodities for the wealthier countries of the world. They are using their best lands to produce those crops for export. Nine times out of 10 that land is owned by wealthy landlords. The ordinary peasants make a few pennies a day for working on the land and their neighbours are starving. It does not make any sense that there is starvation in a world of plenty.
There are many issues we should be dealing with in this House in attempting to ensure that all people in the world, regardless of the colour of their skin, their religious history, or what ideology happens to be in power in their country, are provided with food, management skills, scientific know-how, and so on to ensure that they do not starve. As I said, we seem to have no problem spending billions of dollars every year on the production of nuclear arms in a mad and insane race to kill each other. We could spend half that money feeding the world and making it a much more peaceful place. That is one of the missions this country could be proceeding with.
This is a Bill to kill Canagrex. It was, in its short eight-month life, helping the farmers of Canada find markets around the world. It is very important that we have Canagrex in this age of protectionism. There is tremendous protectionism now in Europe, Japan and the United States. If we are really to sell our commodities we need an agency which will hustle and show some real life.


Thomas Hockin: We need free trade.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister talks about freer trade. I certainly agree that we need freer multilateral trade around the world. Anyone who objects to that is not thinking of the best interests of this country. I certainly agree that we need freer trade and fairer trade around the world. My objection to a free trade arrangement with the United States is that it is a case of a mouse and an elephant. It will not be free trade for Canadians. We will be stamped on.
I come from a part of the country which is being screwed by the proposition for free trade. If we had free trade, the Canadian Wheat Board would have to be abolished because it inhibits free trade as a marketing agency. You either have free trade or you do not. I do not think there should be free trade between the United States and Canada because the small country will be shafted.
I believe we can have trade arrangements with the United States, and the Auto Pact is a very good example of that. However, the Auto Pact is not free trade, it is regulated trade. The Conservative Party does not know of what it speaks when it talks of free trade.
The question before the House is on Canagrex, and the important thing is that we have an agency which sells the goods and commodities produced by the farmers of this country. That is very important in this age of protectionism with the hustling of American, Japanese and European exporters to sell their goods. Yet our Government is abolishing the very agency which could sell more of the farmers' products. If the Government is indeed interested in promoting trade and export, Canagrex should have been kept.
The reason, other than protectionism, that I believe Canagrex should stay is that the farmers are suffering in a crisis worse than any crisis since the 1930s. Farm prices have dropped to the levels at which they were in 1932 and 1933. On the other hand, farm input costs have been skyrocketing in the last 20 or 30 years. If we do not do something to help our farmers, many of our farms will disappear as will the rural way of life which we have known. I say that as a member from a very large farm riding in east central Saskatchewan.
The farmers are suffering because of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) good friend, Ronald Reagan, and the U.S. Farm Bill. They are also suffering because of the foreign policy of the European Common Market. These two giants are having a trade war. They are massively subsidizing their own farmers and the export of their grain to different parts of the world. The people who are caught in the cross-fire are the farmers of Argentina, Australia and Canada. We are caught in the cross-fire, as there is a trade war between the two giants in agricultural production and agricultural export.
What is the solution of the Canadian Government? It is taking away with this Bill one of the tools which farmers had to try to increase their exports. At a time when we have tremendous competition and tremendous protectionism in both
April 14, 1987

Europe and the United States, I cannot understand why the Government across the way would be eliminating one of the few tools we have.
Is it Canagrex today and the Canadian Wheat Board tomorrow? The Canadian Wheat Board is the exporter of farmers' grain. It is the sole selling agency for Canadian grain. Will the Government bargain it away in free trade negotiations with the United States?
There is no wheat board in the United States. There is no grain board in the United States. Americans sell their grain on the so-called private market where the big five or six grain companies do all the bartering and bargaining. American farmers are in the hands of those big grain companies and of course receive massive subsidies from the United States Treasury. If my memory serves me correctly, the present situation is that American farmers receive more in subsidy for a bushel of grain than do Canadian farmers for their entire price per bushel of grain. That is extremely unfair.
Because of the U.S. Farm Bill and European subsidies, we need Canagrex more than ever. Canagrex is supported by the overwhelming majority of farmers in my constituency, be they NDP, Liberal, or PC.
It is another example of the Government of Canada going against the wishes of Canadian farmers and against the wishes of the people of the country. It is one of the reasons the Government of Canada is the first Government in our history to be not first, nor second, but third in the public opinion polls. I suspect that if the Rhinoceros Party were well organized, the Government would be fourth in the public opinion polls. The Tories do not listen to people. They do not understand the Canadian tradition or the Canadian way of life. In fact, they do not even understand their own traditions. A tradition of the Conservative Party of Canada was one which believed in a mixed economy. It was their Party which started the Canadian Wheat Board, CBC, Air Canada, and CNR. Their Party, under Sir John A. Macdonald, John Diefenbaker, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), and others, was progressive. Their Party is now becoming more and more like Ronald Reagan's Republicans in terms of privatization, deregulation, and free trade.
It is a betrayal of the roots of the Conservative Party of Canada and it is a betrayal of the heritage of the Conservative Party of Canada for it to try to emulate and imitate Ronald Reagan and the Republicans in the United States. That is what is happening with the Conservative Party of Canada, and that is why people are leaving the Conservative Party of Canada in droves.
1 am talking about the vision of this country by Sir John A. Macdonald, John Diefenbaker, and even the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead when he was Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. It was a more progressive vision. It was more of a red Tory vision of Canada. However, the current Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is trying to change that. The current Prime Minister is a clone of Ronald Reagan.
Canagrex
He is a clone of the Republican Party of the United States. He is a clone of Margaret Thatcher. That is not the Canadian tradition. That is not the tradition of the Conservative Party.
It is little wonder that Canagrex is being abolished by this Prime Minister, this philosophy, and this ideology. It is the kind of thing John Diefenbaker would never do if he were Prime Minister of Canada. It is the kind of thing that would not happen if the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead were Prime Minister of Canada. It is the kind of thing that would not happen under the Conservative Party of Sir John A. Macdonald of many years ago, which Party had a national vision of the country.
It is no wonder that the majority of Conservative Members who are here today will be finishing not second, but third in the next election campaign in their ridings. They have forgotten to listen to the people of Canada.
I appeal to some of those back-benchers, like the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) who had the courage to speak out, to speak out and say publicly what they say privately to us. They should say publicly what they say privately when they criticize the Prime Minister and the direction in which he is going. At least the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona had the courage of his convictions to say publicly what his constituents were telling him.


Mr. Brisco:: Look at what happened to the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann); he spoke out and got kicked in the foot.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I hear the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco). He said that the Hon. Member for Selkirk- Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) spoke out and got kicked in the foot. No doubt it was by one of his angry constituents who was an ex-supporter of the PCs. That shows how angry the people of Canada are at the PC Government.
It is no wonder the PCs are running a bad third in Manitoba. I understand that they are sitting at about 15 per cent or 16 per cent in the polls out there. Of course, one reason is Canagrex. Another reason is that they have not listened to the farmers of the country.
I know that some big city members of the Conservative Party will laugh, that some of the Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver members of the Conservative Party will laugh, but I should like to quote a statement which appeared in the Norquay North Star. I know they will ask: "Where is Nor-quay?" The Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) knows where Norquay is, but some of the big city Tories do not and do not care, I suppose. Norquay is a small community in my riding. The people of Norquay are concerned about the future of agriculture.
I should like to refer to a front page story which appeared in the March 26 edition of the Norquay North Star which was headlined "Farmers will not seed a third of their land". Hon. Members should be aware of what that article said. In part it reads:

April 14, 1987
Canagrex
Wally Vanin, district ag rep at Kamsack, expects that area farmers will leave about a third of their land in summer-fallow this year.
Because of low prices and increases in input costs, farmers are certainly intending to leave more land fallow, Vanin said, adding that a five-year average shows that 15 per cent of area farmland is left for summer-fallow as compared to this year when between 25 and 35 per cent of the total acres will be left unseeded.


Mr. Holtmann:: What should they do about it?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I hear the Hon. Member's question. First, just so that some of our big city Tory friends understand, about 15 per cent of the farmland is left for summer fallow on average in the Norquay area. This year, about a third of the farmland will be left for summer fallow. The article continues:
With increased amounts of summer-fallow, there is much more need for soil conservation practices, he said, urging farmers to obtain more information on the topic during Soil Conservation Week (April 13 to 17).
The number of acres farmers plan to sow with peas is "growing every day", he said,-
That partly answers the Hon. Member's question. It continues:
-explaining that the market for the peas expanded after most European countries stopped buying corn gluten pellets for feed from the U.S.A.
Although peas still represent less than 10 per cent of area crops, between 6,000 and 8,000 acres of peas will be seeded.
Everyone seems to be planning to sow some barley, especially two-row varieties, he said. Canola acreage is stable and wheat will be down.
We can see what is happening in Norquay. First, farmers are leaving about a third of their acreage to summer fallow. Second, they are sowing alternative crops like peas and others. Because of the decision to sow other crops in that part of Saskatchewan, they need Canagrex now more than ever to get out there and sell, to hustle, and to find markets in various parts of the world.


Felix Holtmann: What does Canagrex do?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: No wonder the Hon. Member was kicked in the shin by one of his constituents. He wants to abolish Canagrex. He wants to get rid of an agency which may find a market for the commodity of a poor farmer in Norquay, Saskatchewan, so that he can feed his wife and children.
No wonder people in my constituency are saying, as they did in the 1930s, that Tory times are tough times. The old-timers in Norquay tell me that in the 1930s, when R. B. Bennett was Prime Minister of the country, people had to take the engines out of their cars and convert them into buggies which they called Bennett wagons.
Prices for farmers are as low now as they were in the 1930s. Once again history is repeating itself. People know that Tory times are tough times. People know that the Conservative Party is more interested in its wealthy millionaire friends in central Canada than in ordinary farmers in Norquay or Kamsack. They know that because they have seen farm prices drop, drop, drop. They have seen farm input costs going up, up, up. They also see a Government which is to abolish Canagrex, an agency which tries to sell farm products to
ensure that the ordinary guy in Norquay is better off. I will not stand for that. The people of Canada will not stand for that. What we want in this country is an election, and we want that election now so Canadians can have a Government that represents average Canadians, ordinary Canadians, and stands for fairness, not just for some wealthy banker in the City of Toronto, but for the farmer in Norquay, the farmer in Selkirk and the ordinary person from one end of this country to the other. I appeal to my friends on the back benches of the Conservative Party to have the courage and convictions of the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona and to stand up and put the Prime Minister of Canada in his place. He would not know the front end of a cow from the back end of one even if he ran into one. That is one of our problems and why there is almost a rebellion in the back benches of the Conservative Party.
1 call upon Members of the Conservative Party to rise and show us that they have the courage and the convictions of the Member from Edmonton-Strathcona who is one of the highest respected Members of the Conservative Party in western Canada, who had the courage to say no to the Prime Minister of Canada, who had the courage to say that the west is being shafted, who had the courage to say that there are too many scandals and too much patronage in the Government of Canada, and who had the courage to stand up and say, "We need a fair deal". Why don't the other trained seals do the same thing? If they do, we will save Canagrex and we will have a Bill that will help the ordinary farmer in Norquay, the farmer in Kamsack, the farmer in Assiniboia, and we will be a much better and stronger country for it.


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) for his speech in the dying stages of Canagrex. In one part of his speech he said that we need now more than ever an entity such as Canagrex. I agree with the Hon. Member's statement. Canada is and could be the food basket of the world. We have no problem producing agricultural goods, especially wheat, potatoes, grains of all sorts, beef, pork, whatever. We have an excellent country and we have some of the best and the most efficient farmers in the world. But one of our big problems is that we cannot sell our farm products. I look at my own province, which is noted for potatoes. I have mentioned it before in the House that the potato prices this year are not that bad. They are at a break even point, and even to the point where a small profit is shown. But I want to wave the flag at the Government and through you, Mr. Speaker, at other Members of Parliament. Only one year out of every two or three do we find ourselves in a break even or profitable situation mainly because of increased production or a larger crop per acre in other countries. If there is a crop failure in Holland, in some other European country or in the United States, then those who produce potatoes in Canada certainly can derive a good income from a failure somewhere else.
April 14, 1987

Someone else's loss is generally our gain, but that is not the way it should be.
The Hon. Member mentioned the plight of wheat farmers in Saskatchewan in the last year or so who have experienced low prices. They have to face the United States subsidizing its wheat while we are unable to do so. I agree with the Hon. Member when he says that we need Canagrex more than ever before. We could look upon the whole world and develop new markets and ideas for our consumer for agricultural products through Canagrex. We could increase our production and keep not only those who are trying to hang on to farms but we could bring more farmers back to the land. What we need are the markets.
Many countries need our produce. My own Province of Prince Edward Island can always sell potatoes to countries like Argentina, but there is a problem getting Canadian or American money from Argentina because it does not have the funds to pay for the commodities it needs. Canagrex could have been a vehicle in this connection.
Can the Hon. Member comment on why and how Canagrex could have been a vehicle that would have enabled government to government transactions in situations like this, not only to increase our market potential in other areas but to feed what we see is a starving population all over the world? We could have been using Canagrex to open up markets. When you feed a hungry world and you get the Third World developing, you can open up other avenues for trade in other manufactured goods and services, and Canada would be looked upon favourably as a potential customer.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I agree fully that Canagrex would have been a very important instrument in government negotiations for negotiating long-term trade deals with various countries around the world. China is a very good example. I was in China in 1979. China is extremely important to Saskatchewan not only for grain and potash but for other crops as well. We could have had some pretty good agreements with an agency like Canagrex. The Government has not replaced Canagrex with any more people. I have a survey of the foreign embassies and high commissions for January, 1986. The survey shows that we have personnel equalling 73 person years working to sell food and agricultural products around the world. That is not very much for the most important industry. In the United States we have personnel equalling 12.5 person years; in western Europe we have personnel equalling 23 person years; in eastern Europe we have personnel equalling
5.5	person years; in Africa we have personnel equalling 3.5 person years; in the Middle East we have personnel equalling 4 person years; in Asia, which excludes Japan and China, we have personnel equalling 4.5 person years; in China, it being very important, we have personnel equalling 2.5 person years; in Japan we have personnel equalling 6 person years; and in Latin America and the Caribbean we have personnel equalling
10.5	person years.
Canagrex
We do not have many people promoting this kind of activity for Canadians. That is why Canagrex is so important, because with it we would have had more long-term commitments and contracts and in the process we could have helped feed part of the world as well as supporting the farmers of Canada.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) referring to city members of the Progressive Conservative Party. As a city member I was astounded to hear him say that city members of the Progressive Conservative Party do not understand, are not concerned with and have no feeling for the farmers of Canada.
I was particularly astounded because as a city member of the Progressive Conservative Party, and there are many, I and all of the other city members supported whole-heartedly the position of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the position of the Government in bringing down interest rates for the Farm Credit Corporation. This was of big assistance to farmers. I and all of the city members of the Progressive Conservative Party supported the purchase of the grape crops in the past by the Government. I and all the city members of the Progressive Conservative Party supported without fail the dairy farm programs introduced just a short time ago. I and all of the city members of the Progressive Conservative Party supported the $1 billion assistance to wheat farmers across Canada, a measure that was introduced by the Prime Minister and the Government a few months ago. I and all of the city members of the Progressive Conservative Party supported as well the Government's trade negotiations with the United States and GATT aimed at defining once and for all the subsidy problems so that we could assist farmers in knowing what subsidies were a problem and what subsidies were not a problem and so we could put in place a trade dispute settlement mechanism that would solve farmers' exporting problems once and for all.
In addition to all of that, I and all of the city members of the Progressive Conservative Party supported the capital gains tax exemption program which has been a big help to western farmers. I was astounded to hear the Hon. Member say that the city members of the Progressive Conservative Party did not understand or support these things.
I would like to know why the city members of the NDP did not support the capital gains tax exemption for western farmers. I would like to know why they are not supporting the trade negotiations that will work out a mechanism to settle trade disputes so that we can help farmers with their exports to other countries. Will the Hon. Member tell us why the city members of his Party are not supporting the farmers of this country?


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the Hon. Member would not wish to mislead the House, but I am an urban member of the New Democratic Party and we have spoken out strongly in support of the capital gains tax

April 14, 1987
Canagrex
exemption for the family farm. I know the Hon. Member would not want to mislead the House by suggesting otherwise.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, 1 hope the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) will put on the record exactly when he made that statement in the House so we can all take a close look at it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not want this to get into debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I know we are not supposed to divulge caucus secrets, but often the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) says in caucus that we must have this exemption for the family farms. I remember hearing that often.


Alan Redway: When?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I would have to look at our caucus records, but you are not in our caucus.
I said that some city members of the Conservative Party were not very supportive. Where are those Tory members from the big cities when it comes to saving Canagrex? Where are those Tory members from Toronto when it comes to a decent deficiency payment for farmers? Where are those big-city Tory members when it comes to doing something about the high cost of farm chemicals by supporting generic farm chemicals, for example? Where are those big-city Tory members when it comes to raising questions in the House about farmers being ripped off by fertilizer costs? Where are those big-city Tory members when it comes to raising questions about the damage the CDC decision will do on the Prairies by allowing the CNR to charge variable rates? Where are those big-city Tory members when it comes to these important issues for western Canada?
There is a thunderous silence in the House. Those Members do not raise these questions. They do not make these arguments. That is one reason why the farmer of western Canada is now in the worst position he has been in since the 1930s. We have in Government a Party that is insensitive to the needs of the farmers not just in the west but indeed in all of Canada. There is no better way to exhibit that insensitivity than to abolish Canagrex, the very agency that is supposed to sell products for farmers and improve their incomes. I ask my Toronto Tory friend where he is when we need him. Am I indeed accurate in saying that Tory times are tough times? They certainly are on the Prairies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on third reading of Bill C-2. At this point, the Government has heard all the issues. Members of the agricultural industry have been urging the Government to drop the Bill in order to save the Canagrex Corporation which was set up, as you will recall, at the request of the principal parties in the agricultural sector.
Mr. Speaker, on October 3, 1986, the Bill was tabled in the House and given first reading. Since that time, all parties in the agricultural industry who are concerned about the future of this sector have made representations, asking the Government to change its mind, to recognize the validity of Canagrex and especially, to have some kind of perspective on the future.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian agricultural community is very concerned today about the financial difficulties it is facing and the gradual shrinking of its markets. At a time when every day we are seeing surpluses in various commodities and protectionist measures being imposed throughout the world, Canadian producers are wondering where they will be able to sell their products.
Mr. Speaker, some people will say the Canadian market is sufficient. However, these people forget the efficiency and the potential of Canada's agricultural sector. We all know that new technology and the effectiveness of our farmers would enable us to make significant inroads on foreign markets and that by the same token, we could create thousands of jobs in the agricultural sector and the entire agri-food industry.
I find it very hard to understand how a Government can, on such short notice, decide to get rid of a corporation whose purpose was to open these markets and thus create new jobs. For a Government that is so proud of its Bill to create new jobs and that claims it wants to encourage exports, it is being terribly inconsistent in what it says and what it does.
I was just thinking of our farmers, and I know a number of Members in this House are very much aware of the recriminations of these farmers, and they are going to see that the most frustrating thing for Canadian farmers is to have to control and limit their production.
It is often said that being an excellent farmer is a virtue. The trouble is, however, that when these farmers become very competitive, they are told right away: Listen, there is no room for your products on the market. Please, cut down production.
Now then, Mr. Speaker, Canagrex was established precisely so that our Canadian farmers would be free to produce at will, and after that the corporation would help them sell their products not only on the domestic market but also by making significant inroads into foreign markets.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, do not ask me to follow the logic of the Government because I have the impression it has none. Believe it or not, at the very moment when the Government is bragging about the free trade scenario and claiming that we must penetrate foreign markets, particularly the American market, it wants to discard a very useful instrument which happens to be designed to make it easier for us to set foot in foreign markets.
That is very difficult to swallow, Mr. Speaker, and they have the nerve to tell us that public servants from External Affairs will take over and replace Canagrex. Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) is
April 14, 1987

fully cognizant of the attitude of External Affairs public servants, but I am convinced that seldom within the confines of the Lester B. Pearson Building has he heard anything about wheat or potato producers. And I am convinced that during External Affairs' big cocktail parties, potatoes from Prince Edward Island seldom are a priority. So I think, Mr. Speaker, that anyone who has had any contacts with people from External Affairs know it is not really their mandate to look after the promotion of farm commodities.
People also say: Do not worry, the EDC looks after that. Anyone in business who had to deal with the EDC to get funding for farm products knows very well that the EDC's time-lag and lack of flexibility and understanding do not allow it to have ongoing relations nor allow exporters to make fast decisions, because as you know, Mr. Speaker, what is involved often is perishable goods. And unfortunately, the EDC's procedures are much too slow.
Therefore, what we are doing when dismantling Canagrex is letting Canadian farmers down once more. We are saying: Look, the Government has three or four agencies to look after you. But as you know, Mr. Speaker, three or four agencies to look after them means that in the end, no one looks after them, because they are all passing the buck.
So this is why the then government, Mr. Speaker, established a corporation like Canagrex, which only had eight months to prove itself. I think the assessment made by this Government is near-sighted, because in its eight months of activity, Canagrex already was implied in farm commodities export projects to the tune of more than $160 million, and those $160 million would have landed directly into the pockets of Canadian farmers who are in dire need of cash, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot undertand how Conservative back-benchers who have farmers in their constituencies can accept that such an important help to Canadian agriculture be stopped.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that another basic objective of a Canadian trade policy certainly is export diversification. And I believe that systematic efforts were made in the area of grains. There is also of course the Canadian Dairy Commission which is making efforts under its foreign program. But there are many other commodities, Mr. Speaker, which could certainly be taken into account and would allow us to diversify the Canadian agricultural base and our export base.
Therefore, I suggest whoever is concerned about the future of rural Canada cannot but hope that this important economic sector will not only meet our domestic needs but will also turn to other countries to secure important contracts bringing in the currency so greatly needed by our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely do not understand why the Government plans to abolish Canagrex which was only beginning to shape up, having merely hired a few employees
Canagrex
and undertaken reviews on available products. But automatically, the wind is taken out of its sails, it is not allowed to show its usefulness and the economic impact it could have.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member for Brome- Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) is concerned about the future of Canagrex because apple producers in her area surely would have benefitted from Canagrex. We know that dozens upon dozens of producers would be ready to sell abroad but have no contacts and no financing, and I suggest that a corporation such as Canagrex could have played a very important role. Since they would not have had to deal with the various layers of government bureaucracy, the task of government officials which was then strictly directed to farming issues would have been made easier.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that for apple growers, hog producers and farmers involved in the production of many other foodstuffs today is a dark day indeed, because their hopes for marketing opportunities abroad have been shattered.
Mr. Speaker, farmers are often advised to take advantage of traditional programs. It has been my experience over the past nine years that each time farm organizations or individual farmers as such ... I remember a farmer from my area who wanted to sell live cattle in Mexico; he had checked all federal Government programs, knocked on every door, but not a single Government agency wanted to take a chance or insure the risk for this farmer who had developed quite a lucrative market for cattle in Mexico.
Mr. Speaker, Canagrex, within its terms of reference, would have taken care of that, would have ensured that people who wanted to sell cattle abroad would be able to do so, while at the same time providing them with a certain security, because when someone sends between 200 and 300 cows to Mexico, chances are the customer might disappear, and that is why the guarantee was important.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that when we consider what is happening in this country, we realize that the farming community is slowly disappearing. We have heard some NDP colleagues describe the dramatic situation in their own ridings. I suggest that the Government may brag about the supposed assistance it has given to the farming community, but the truth is that no subsidies or appropriate assistance programs will ever replace foreign markets. Mr. Speaker, farmers do not want a series of support programs from the Government. They are hard working, they are willing to produce, and to produce much more than at the present time, but they simply want the Government of Canada to help them gain access to certain foreign markets. Mr. Speaker, they are not imploring, they are not begging, they are simply asking that the same respect be shown for the farming class as for the manufacturers who go on missions around the world with daily financial assistance from the Export Development Corporation. We want the same treatment for the agricultural industry, which is highly specialized.

April 14, 1987
Canagrex
Therefore I do not see why the Government is insisting on abolishing this agency. I feel that this is a case of negative discrimination. Probably it is because the farm lobby was not sufficiently organized around the senior ministers. Imagine! It was the Minister of Finance who announced the bad news, someone who, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, has never milked a cow in his life, who has no idea of what is going on, of what is happening in the agricultural sector. He had the gall to come up and tell farmers: Listen, we want nothing to do with Canagrex, we want nothing to do with you; take care of your own problems. That is exactly how the Government of Canada responded, and later on they said: We will transfer a few public servants here and there to take care of you. But the fact is that the old system was not working, which is why we created the Canagrex Corporation with a specific mandate for agricultural products.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this decision can be explained by the obsession of the Government with anything called a Crown corporation. Maybe our mistake was to call it a Crown corporation. Maybe if it had been a branch or whatever within a Department, they probably would have ignored this group of 70 public servants who were strictly dedicated to the promotion of Canadian products. We also have to remember that what we wanted to sell on foreign markets were competitively priced products. Canadian farmers are among the most productive in the world, and therefore there is no reason to be afraid of sending Canagrex sellers all over the world because they have a quality product, a product which is certainly made with state-of-the-art technology, and can be sold at a very competitive price. I am convinced that my colleague the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) does not understand why the Minister of Finance announced the abolition of Canagrex, because common sense tells us that first Canagrex recovered its costs and secondly, that it could have played a major role in Canadian trade policy. I think you have to be very shortsighted and to be obsessed by rhetoric to overlook the necessity and the validity of an agency like this one.
Mr. Speaker, I say that in a few months or in a few years, but that may be too far for the Government to look ahead because they will not be there any more, but I think that the next Liberal Government will have to correct once again the mistake made by this Government. I think that the next Government will absolutely have to re-establish an agency with a mandate similar to that of Canagrex. Consequently, the Conservative Government wastes four valuable years in a protectionist world where Canagrex agents could have gradually opened several markets, where they could have become legitimate in the Canadian agricultural sector, where they could have said for instance that there is an opening in this or that country for the hog sector, where they could have tried to open the Chinese market. Mr. Speaker, you know how long it takes, how difficult it is to penetrate a market like the Chinese market.
I am convinced that, had the Government not killed Canagrex in its infancy, the Agency would have done very well over the years. Slowly but surely it would have built contacts around the world, it would have shown Canadian products in international affairs and exhibitions to promote the Made in Canada label. They would have us believe that the officials in External Affairs are going to do the job. Now, Mr. Speaker, they have never done it since Confederation. Why do you think the Canadian Grain Commission was created? Why was the Canadian Dairy Commission forced to get involved with exports? Because External Affairs were not doing their job. I am pretty sure that the ones who want the abolition of Canagrex ... I would like our Conservative colleagues to tell us whether they would trust diplomats from External Affairs when it comes to selling commodities for the Canadian Grain Commission. Do they have total confidence in that agency? I have great respect for External Affairs, but it is not their bag.
I hope that before the final vote, Mr. Speaker, and I know it is high time . . . The truth is, our colleagues should realize that it is essential for the expansion of the Canadian agriculture, for the development of new agricultural tehnologies and for the creation of jobs in the agri-business field. We have to develop our foreign markets, and we will not be able to do so by merely saying to two or three agencies: "Look after that in your spare time." I am very disappointed to see people like the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) or others in similar areas, not reacting, when their interests are the same as those of Liberal Members. Farmers from all regions and all political stripes have a vested interest in the survival of Canagrex and the expansion of its activities.
Therefore, before concluding, because I know that the time allotted to me is running out, I really regret very much that our colleagues opposite do not rise to underline again the necessity of Canagrex and that they in fact remain passive in spite of the designs of the Minister of Finance who has no idea whatsoever of what is going on in the agricultural world, who does not realize the impact of a corporation such as Canagrex in the agricultural sector nor does he have any concern about the importance of exportation markets for the development of several farming communities.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, 1 must unfortunately . . . And you know that unfortunately they are 211.1 must now come to the conclusion that if the members opposite are spineless, we will have during the next hours to mourn the passing of Canagrex. Mr. Speaker, it is surely a sad day for the Canadian agriculture and once again in a few years we will have to correct that fundamental mistake of the Government. When they meet the sad fate awaiting them in opinion polls, 1 hope Tory Members will remember the day they voted for the abolition of Canagrex. They have lost two or three more points, Mr. Speaker, and this is not the end.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, a question to my friend the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre). I agree with what he said about the abolition of Canagrex. It is important to keep
April 14, 1987

such an agency as Canagrex for the exportation of Canadian agricultural products.
However, I should like to put to him the following question. Why did the former Liberal Government with Mr. Whelan as Minister of Agriculture create Canagrex four or five years ago, in 1982-83? Why did it not set up Canagrex in the seventies?
I know that the Liberal Party is sometimes quite slow. It did not react quickly as a government, but there was serious exportation problems for our farming products in the sixties and seventies. Why did it wait until the end of the Trudeau Government to set up such an important corporation for the Canadian people? Why during your 20-year mandate in this country did you wait till the end to set up such a corporation? You now agree that Canagrex was a fine idea and you would like to see it restored. However, why did you wait till the end of your mandate to set up Canagrex?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I believe I must thank my colleague for his question. I can assure him that the decision to create Canagrex was not taken on the spur of the moment. Over the years, there were a lot of discussions about the creation of Canagrex and it was very difficult-and my colleague will remember since he has been here for some years-to convince the farming community that that agency was needed. It took a lot of persuasion, time and efforts on the part of the federal Minister of Agriculture to convince not only the farming community representatives, but also the numerous interest groups that emerged in an attempt to influence the Government.
And I think it explains why those groups from the Export Development Corporation, External Affairs and the Public Service as a whole succeeded in influencing the present Government. What happened is that the very arguments used against us over the years and that we finally overturned by creating Canagrex, those same arguments were presented to the Minister of Finance who bought them.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that you can understand that our task was a difficult one but it is always difficult to bring about programs that are beneficial to the farming community because many groups from the urban community do not necessarily understand the fact that this agency is needed by our farming community as a whole. Farmers, as you know, represent but a small portion of the Canadian people, therefore they have to fight twice as hard. That is exactly what the Liberal Government and the then Minister of Agriculture did. We succeeded in establishing Canagrex but now, I think that the same somewhat reactionary pressure groups, that we faced, got the ear of the Finance Minister which explains why Canagrex is dismantled.
Military Equipment Export Restrictions MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed, without amendment, the following Bills: C-28, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (torture), C-44, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Mr. Speaker, this afternoon members have had an opportunity to learn about the various aspects of the export control policy of the Government as it applies particularly to the military exports. Indeed, it will come as no surprise to members to learn that in addition to a complex system which processes and reviews applications from Canadian manufacturers and exporters of military goods or of highly sensitive strategic goods, there is an equally complex system to track the movement of control goods both before and subsequent to their export from Canada. This particular issue was raised recently by one member who was expressing some concern about the possibility of Canadian origin military equipment being used in a regional conflict in spite of, or contrary to, Canadian policy in this regard.', "April 14, 1987\nRoyal Assent\nIn order to reassure the House on this question I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Export and Import Permits Act is Canada's legislation for controlling the export of strategic and military goods. All items which are subject to controls are found on the Export Control List. The definition of what goods are military or strategic was covered in the Minister's policy statement of September 10, 1986, and various members have referred to those definitions this afternoon. Today, various Hon. Members have referred to those definitions. For their part, the definitions used by Canada find their origin in the multilaterally agreed international munitions list which is reflected in Group 7 of our Export Control List and, for strategic goods, are defined by reference to items described in Groups 3 to 8 and 10 of the Export Control List reflecting COCOMs International Embargo Lists.\nBefore such goods can be exported from Canada, there is a legal requirement under the Act for an export permit. The decision to issue a permit and the conditions under which such a permit would be issued are bound by regulations issued under the Act, policy guidelines issued by the Government, and rules and practices which form part of Canada's multilateral obligations as a member of the Co-ordinating Committee for Multilateral Strategic Export Controls. COCOMs purpose, as Hon. Members may recall, is to co-ordinate and harmonize control over exports of military and strategic goods to certain proscribed destinations which are essentially the Soviet Union and other members of the Warsaw Pact as well as the People's Republic of China, Viet Nam, North Korea and Albania.\nIn order to ensure that the most sensitive class of exports, including both military goods and technology and the highest level of strategic goods and technology, are not diverted, there is an internationally recognized document issued at present by the Governments of 27 countries. By means of this document, the export control authorities of the importing country acknowledge that they are aware that an importer in their country is importing multilaterally controlled goods from the exporting country. This document, called an International Import Certificate, or IC for short, must correspond in all details with the export permit application or it is not accepted and an export permit application risks immediate refusal."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
April 14, 1987 Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerard V.J. LaForest, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 14th day of April, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Leopold H. Amyot Secretary to the Governor General.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5.02 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on todays Order Paper.



Nelson Andrew Riis: That, in the opinion of this House, the Committee on External Affairs and International Trade should undertake a public review of the existing Canadian policy as it applies to the restrictions placed upon Canadian exports of military equipment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity to present this motion to the House for consideration.
This motion follows a number of efforts to communicate with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) requesting the same point as raised in this motion, and that is that the whole matter of Canadian exports of military equipment policy be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade for evaluation in terms of its content, its applicability and suitability.

April 14, 1987
Military Equipment Export Restrictions
The reason for this motion is that there is widespread concern among many groups of Canadians that the existing Canadian policy, as it applies to the export of military equipment, is inadequate both in substance and in its application. This was certainly highlighted last fall when it was learned that Canadian firms had been exporting helicopter parts to Iran. Those helicopter parts reportedly could be used by the Iranian military in its war with Iraq. That indicated that Canadian firms exporting military equipment were doing so in such a way that it brought the whole policy of military exports into some question.
I think it is important to recognize that Canada is in fact a significant player in the arms trade. In fact, we are in the top 10 when it comes to the total value of our exports, although we are certainly surpassed by the largest arms exporters such as the United States, the Soviet Union, France, West Germany and others. The United States is our largest customer. It received about 80 per cent of our military equipment exports over the last number of years.
A growing share of our exports, however, are going to Third World countries. In the 1970s, our exports to Third World countries averaged about $100 million per year. Today it is closer to $300 million per year. Our military exports are regulated by guidelines put out by the Department of External Affairs. However, I want to say that there is no public scrutiny in the application of these guidelines. In fact, it is almost impossible to get any detailed information on Canada's export of military goods.
Canada's export guidelines have undergone some review in recent years. Before March, 1985, there were four basic restrictions placed upon our exports of arms. They were, first, that no arms could be shipped to countries that were a threat to Canada, in other words, countries like the Soviet Union; second, that no weapons could be shipped to countries on which a United Nations sanction existed, such as South Africa; third, that no weapons could be shipped to countries engaged in hostilities such as Iran and Iraq; and fourth, that no weapons could be shipped to "regimes considered to be wholly repugnant to Canadian values and especially where such equipment could be used against civilians".
In March, 1985, these guidelines were amended without any consultation with Canadians, and the human rights restrictions were dropped. In June, 1985, I brought evidence to the House of Commons in the form of copies of export permits which showed that Canada had been allowing the export of military equipment to regimes such as Chile, South Korea and the Philippines, all of which had been cited by Amnesty International as countries which engaged in the detention and torture of their citizens.
I have in my hand at the moment, in fact, copies of some of these export permits. I have one for exporting spare parts for tanks to Chile for the total amount of $73,000 U.S. I have another one for Chile with respect to military aircraft parts for $200,000, and another one for Chile for suits and helmets to be used by the Chilean National Police. From a request I made
on December 1, 1986, I found that, yes, permits had been given for the export of military equipment to Chile, Syria, Pakistan and Indonesia in the amount of millions and millions of dollars. So we are talking about something where ample proof exists in terms of just what Canadians are doing with arms exports.
It is also interesting to note that after these revelations, I was no longer able to secure this information on arms exports from the Department of External Affairs under Access to Information, as I had previously.
In September, 1986, the guidelines were marginally revised. The first three restrictions I mentioned earlier remained. However, under the new policy, there is to be a secret list kept of countries which have a persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens. The fact that this is all done in secret is one of the most objectionable aspects of this new policy. The policy goes on to state that if the exporter can satisfy the Government that the goods will not likely be used against civilians, then an export permit can be granted. This means that if an arms exporter from Canada receives a little note from General Pinochet promising that these arms will not be used against civilians, whether they are tanks, gun parts or shields for Chilean police, that would then satisfy the requirements and the exports would take place.
There are really three basic problems with the existing policy. First, the Government's compliance with its own guidelines is kept secret in that there is no public scrutiny of just what types of military equipment we are sending abroad and to whom. Do Canadians know that certain types of military goods are being authorized for shipment to Chile? The answer is that under the current policy, they do not, because the information is kept secret. I believe the public's right to know deserves priority over the arms sellers' preference for privacy.
Another item of concern is the fact that the current regulations do not adequately make allowance for what is known as "manufacturing". What this means is that Canadian aircraft engine parts could be sent to France and placed in a war plane which is then shipped to Iraq or to Syria. Under these circumstances, of course, Canada could not block this type of sale. Therefore, we could be sending parts to the United States, to France, or to West Germany where they can be re-manufactured or assembled in such a way that they end up as military hardware, which is then exported to countries of questionable repute.
Another problem with the present regulations is that current regulations remove restrictions on strategic goods such as computers, communications equipment and so on. Thus surveillance equipment can be shipped to Chile to be used by the secret police in its operations against civilians. Therefore, I believe it is time that a public review of these regulations took place.
I want to make it clear that while we have received hundreds of letters on this issue from Canadians living in Sooke, British
April 14, 1987

Columbia to St. John's, Newfoundland, the motion presently before the Elouse does not pass judgment on the existing guidelines. I want to make that perfectly clear. It simply calls for the opportunity for Members of the House of Commons to scrutinize these guidelines in public, with input from concerned Canadian citizens. It is time that the veil of secrecy was lifted from this very important public policy.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention and thrust of the motion of my friend, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), of the New Democratic Party. I think that he is perhaps being a trifle generous in his motion. In other words, I do not think that his motion goes quite far enough. I certainly support it. I have no objection to it. In fact, I would welcome a review of existing policy. I think we know from experience, and the evidence is before us, that the existing policy does not go far enough and that any such inquiry should address those measures which should be taken to strengthen the guidelines.

But as I just said we will certainly endorse the thrust of the motion introduced by my friend and colleague, but I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that we must go much further.
The Member who proposes this motion, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), has pointed out that access to information is also a major consideration. We agree with that. I would like to refer the House and my colleagues to an emergency resolution-
[ Translation]
-what is called a resolution of exception which I introduced during our Liberal convention, our political convention in November. Because we identified the problem with controls and considering last year's experience with respect to the export of helicopter engines to some locations in the Middle East, Iran in this case, we moved the following resolution:
WHEREAS recent developments have shown that the present Government policy does not prevent the sale of military equipment, designed for either military or civilian use, to belligerent nations such as Iran and Iraq;
WHEREAS the Liberal Party of Canada strongly supports a pacific settlement of the Iran-Iraq conflict; and
WHEREAS Amnesty International reports persistent and serious violations of human rights in both Iran and Irak;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada adopt an export control policy covering military equipment, or equipment which can be used for both civilian and military purposes, and respecting the following principles:
(a)	stricter requirements concerning final destination and use;
(b)	public access to information concerning this kind of transactions.

In other words, in the resolution which was presented on behalf of the Liberal caucus to a policy convention which, incidentally, was adopted, we resolved that we should adopt an
Military Equipment Export Restrictions
export control policy for military equipment and for products that have both a civilian and a military application. It would include those two principles which I just cited a moment ago in French, namely, that end-use certificate requirements be strengthened and that information on this category of transaction be accessible.
This resolution was proposed in the aftermath of the export from Canada last year of engines for helicopters. It was pointed out by the helicopter manufacturer, and in this regard I would like to cite an article from The Globe and Mail of November 18, that:
-an employee of Bell Helicopters Textron Inc., the firm that makes the Bell
212, said that the PT-6T twinpack engines can also be used in Bell's UH-1N
helicopters, which are military helicopter gunships.
That revelation underlined the importance of strengthening these export controls so that we can bring into the basket of prohibited exports that type of equipment which, indeed, serves both military and civilian purposes. It is not enough to concentrate only on the military aspect of these transactions- for the very obvious reason, as we have seen here, that many of these items can also be used for civilian purposes. They can be disguised as civilian shipments and subsequently be used for military purposes.
I would also add that the resolution which we proposed picked up on the other point, the notion of the end-use certificate. This is a point which was referred to by my colleague. It refers to the export of, say, helicopter engines, which I suppose is a perfect example, to a country which is not engaged in warfare, which is not involved in human rights violations and, hence, for which an export certificate is no problem. In turn, that country can incorporate the Canadian-manufactured product into another product such as equipment mounted on a helicopter or some other type of aircraft which will find military application in a third country.
I recognize that these are difficult questions. However, it behooves us in this House, and it behooves the Government, to address this issue in order to correct the very obvious defects which we now see in these export control regulations. Apropos that, I note that in committee last January 21 my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), picked up on these very same points. He asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) whether the Government was contemplating changes to its export arms policy and the regulations which guide their use. My colleague pointed out in his question that, indeed, we find military and non-military uses for the same equipment. We see that a third country can incorporate products made in Canada and then subsequently export them into an area which is a combat area such as Iran, Iraq, and so on.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry also raised the issue of an international arms registry. The Secretary of State for External Affairs did not enlighten us with respect to what steps the Government has in mind, although I am confident that he, too, must be concerned about the export of Canadian products which find military application in theatres

April 14, 1987
Military Equipment Export Restrictions
of combat. Ele indicated that he was not satisfied that an international arms registry would serve any useful purpose. EJe said something to the effect that it is one of those very good ideas which simply do not work. It seems to me that it is up to us here as parliamentarians to find out why, for example, an international registry could not be made to work. There are obviously some problems that immediately come to mind in terms of compliance with a registry. Nevertheless, that is the type of issue which should be raised by a committee in the type of public inquiry to which this motion makes reference.
In conclusion, I would like to say that, indeed, I support the thrust of the motion from the New Democratic Party with respect to this issue. At the same time I would point out that we have already within our own Party taken a much stronger position, recognizing the weaknesses in the present policy and proposing some very specific solutions. I would like any such inquiry to be broadened to consider the effectiveness of such solutions in providing this country with an efficient, useful and effective arms control export policy which could serve as a guide for other nations as well.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, the Government welcomes the opportunity afforded by the motion presented by the Elon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) to discuss the Government's policy on exports of military equipment. This debate is a timely one, considering the number of headlines we have seen on the subject in recent months. We would like to make it clear that this is indeed a very important issue, and not just because of the media attention it is receiving. The Government wants to be sure all members understand the legal and regulatory framework within which Canada exercises export controls, and it wants to clarify the guidelines that apply to strategic and military exports.
The control which Canada exercises on the exports of military equipment are but part of a wider set of export controls. The present regulation, the Export and Import Permits Act, was passed by the House in 1954 and has since been amended on various occasions. It controls both the import and export of designated goods. The Export Control List is the regulation which defines controlled export under the Act.

The export control list is established by the Governor in Council and identifies or includes all goods requiring an export licence. Certain goods may be put on the list, in order to prevent military equipment or components or other strategic goods from being made available to potential adversaries, to ensure that we have military or other equipment in sufficient quantity to defend Canada, and to implement intergovernmental agreements and commitments.
The export control list consists of ten groups, only one of which covers military equipment, while six others concern strategic goods. Since there is some disagreement as to the kind of goods that should be classified as military, the Government feels that all Hon. Members should be aware exactly what these controlled goods are. It has defined military equipment in terms of the multilaterally accepted international munitions list (Group 7 on our export control list). In addition to arms and munitions, the list includes equipment designed specifically for military purposes such as military vehicles, military telemetry equipment and certain types of electronic equipment manufactured to military specifications.
Strategic goods, which make up a large part of the rest of the export control list, are civilian high technology goods recognized multilaterally as being a potential danger to our security if they were to fall in the hands of potential adversaries. Because strategic goods can strengthen the industrial structure of those potential opponents, and therefore their military potential, we have agreed with our allies that they should be controlled. Strategic goods include products such as high performance computers, telecommunication switching equipment, advanced machine tools, certain laboratory and geophysics equipment and the technology used in their manufacturing. Those goods are not controlled as strictly as military goods, because they are normally required for civil, industrial or business use by a large number of our trade partners. Our concern with those goods is linked to potential diversion of those goods to unauthorized destinations and their improper use.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to stress the political goals pursued by the Canadian Government when applying a system of controls on military equipment exports. Each of those goals is of very great importance. They are part of the ongoing concerns of numerous Canadian governments over 25 years.
The long-standing goals our Canadian policy are: Not to supply military goods to potential opponents; to avoid getting involved in local conflicts; to avoid hindering Canadian participation in peacekeeping operations; to promote our public interest by maintaining order and stability on the international scale, including the respect of human rights.
The review made by the Government last year, the results of which were announced on September 10, 1986, led to the policy's revitalization and adaptation and to a clarification of the rules. This dealt in particular with the export of military goods, without neglecting the role of strategic goods nor this government's commitment to encourage trade on peaceful goods with all nations.
Mr. Speaker, that policy also specifies our national security and defence goals. It recognizes that Canada needs an industry capable of meeting our defence needs, by encouraging joint undertakings with our NATO allies. The ability to manufacture and export to a large number of countries, but mainly to our allies and other friendly nations, is essential to preserve the economic health and entrepreneurship of our business corporations.
April 14, 1987

In the policy announcement made on September 10, 1986, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) stated that Canada was closely monitoring the export of military goods and technologies to the following countries: First, countries that are a threat to Canada and its allies; second, nations involved in or under imminent threat of hostilities; third, countries against which sanction have been taken by the Security Council of the United Nations; fourth, countries with persistent records of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens, unless it can be showed there is no reasonable risk of the goods being used against the civil population.
Mr. Speaker, those guidelines are restrictive, as it was in the past. But they are now clearer, they express our respect for our international commitments and international law, and they have the general support of Canadians across the land. Especially, I would like to call your attention to the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the sale of military equipment to countries with persistent records of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens. This amended, clarified and reinforced guidelines developed during the policy review reflects the Government's strong commitment to the promotion of human rights throughout the world.
For reasons of national and collective defence, Canada is co-operating with its allies to prevent the exports of military and strategic goods and technologies to nations which represent a threat for the security of our country and that of our allies. This policy stems from Canada's participation in an organization of 16 countries known as the Co-ordinating Committee for Strategic Trade Countrols, also known as the COCOM. This informal organization is made up of NATO countries, except Iceland and Japan. It meets regularly in Paris to review all planned sales of military and strategic goods and technologies which have a military significance and which might go to nations which are considered as a threat to the Western Countries' Alliance. The countries excluded by COCOM include the USSR, the other members of the Warsaw Pact, and the People's Republic of China. The COCOM supervises goods and technologies classified in 120 groups and has established three international lists of embargo-imposed goods: The list of industrial goods, that of ammunitions and that of atomic energy products. These three lists are the subject of negotiations between member countries. Once adopted, they reflect the COCOM's consensus on what military goods and technologies, atomic energy goods and strategic goods are. They are the basis for controls applied by each member country, in line with its own legislation.
In conclusion, the Government has laws and regulations in place to further its policy objectives. These policy objectives attempt to balance Canada's national security concerns, its economic development objectives, and the legitimate views of Canadians that Canada should not become involved in foreign
Military Equipment Export Restrictions
conflicts and should not contribute to human rights offences in other countries.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the debate. I should like to say a word of appreciation to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), not only for putting his motion on the Order Paper and raising it for debate today, but also for having raised the issue numerous times in the past.
The issue of arms exports from Canada must be seen in the total world context. We are spending close to $1 trillion per year on arms. At the same time, millions of people, our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world, are going hungry, naked, and homeless. There is a tremendous imbalance in the way in which the world is spending its money.
Ruth Leger-Savard, in her book entitled World Military and Social Expenditures for 1985 illustrated some gross inconsistencies. She pointed out that in 1983 we spent on a world basis some $25,600 on military expenditures for every soldier throughout the world. For every school child in the world, we spent $450. We spent $45 per capita for military research. We spent $11 per capita for health research. We spent $152 per capita for military forces, and 6 cents per capita for international peacekeeping.
Today we are talking about a global problem which threatens the very survival of our world. As we look at the escalating arms race, it concerns us vitally as Canadians. In addition, it has a vital impact upon the lives of people, particularly those in the Third World who have been targeted by Canadian arms manufacturers as being perhaps the most lucrative market to develop and exploit.
The motion asks that the Government refer this very important matter to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. I am sure that is something all Hon. Members would want. Let us have a committee of the House examine this very important issue.
I am very pleased that our regular member on that committee, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), has repeatedly tried to get the committee to examine the whole question of arms exports.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) said that he wanted to go further than did the motion. Of course we want to go further, but the motion is a starting place. I regret that when that member was a member of the previous Government he did not take action which would have resulted in some amelioration of the problem. In fact, during the time that that member's Party was in government, there were numerous instances when issues such as this one were brought to its attention and nothing was done about them.
In 1983, it was brought to the attention of the Government that helicopter parts were being exported to the United States and that the end use of those helicopter parts was in El Salvador to strafe the civilian population. The Government did

April 14, 1987
Military Equipment Export Restrictions
nothing about it. It took no action to tighten up its procedures at that time. Now that the Liberals are in opposition they say they want to go further than this motion that asks for a standing committee to look at the matter and make recommendations. We also had Liberal Government complicity in the 1970s with sending arms shipments to Vietnam through the United States.
Ernie Regher in his book entitled Arms Canada pointed out that because of defence sharing agreements with the United States and highly developed arms production in Europe, Canada had specifically targeted the Third World as the major market for our arms sales. In fact, arms sales from Canada to the Third World have tripled in the last decade.
Mr. Regher also pointed out that there was a basic foreign policy conflict which we are not really examining. On the one hand we say we are for peace and development. On the other hand we blindly sell weapons to whomever will buy them. Mr. Regher said that arms sales represent an economic activity, not an instrument of foreign policy. Foreign policy is sometimes dragged in by the heels in a very weak process of review, but arms sales are not seen as integral to our policy.
We have backward priorities in the whole area. Instead of having the bias in terms of looking at Canada's interests in world peace, security, and development, our primary objective is to sell arms products and then look at what the implications might be in what has been described as a very weak review process.
That review process allows us to sell arms to countries like Chile. I was privileged, along with members of other Parties, to visit Chile last fall. One person with whom we met who most impressed my colleagues and I was Dr. Juan Luis Gonzales, a medical doctor who is President of the Civic Assembly in Chile. He is a very mild-mannered human being who acts out of concern for his fellow Chileans. He was arrested and he served time in jail. He spoke of the climate of fear which pervades Chile. He said that everyone lived in fear and that the poor were absolutely terrorized. We also heard evidence from him that he knew personally of up to 30-35 people who had been tortured.
Are we to expect that sending computers to Chile is a purely neutral act? Of course it is not. They are used in the whole apparatus of repression. We need much tighter controls.
When I was in Ethiopia a year ago, I heard testimony from its Minister of Labour and Social Affairs who said:
The money we have spent on defence in the last 10 years would have enabled
us to feed ourselves in spite of the drought.
Ethiopia is not a recipient of Canadian arms sales, but it illustrates the eschewed priorities of our world.
In conclusion, I simply urge the House to accept the motion. When the committee looks at the matter, I hope it will recommend some annual public review policy of Canadian arms sales and will examine the human rights records of countries receiving Canadian arms. I also hope that it will develop more stringent criteria for application in terms of
human rights, that it will adopt a public registry of arms export permits so that people can find out where arms are being shipped, and that there will be stricter monitoring of end use. It is not enough for us to export to the United States under the Defence Production Sharing Agreement. We must know what is the end use.
I urge support for the motion. I urge that we question the entire Canadian arms export policy. We should stop being part of this madness which spends $1 trillion per year on instruments of death and destruction.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to enter this debate. Canada's export controls policy has occasionally been criticized over definitions of what is considered to be a military good. As well, a number of individuals would wish the Government to extend the application of its law and policy with respect to military or other exports outside our national borders. Canada is not alone in this regard, as many of our NATO allies with similar export control regimes face similar pressures.
As my colleague has pointed out, the Government's policy on the export of military goods and technology derives from objectives which have been in effect over the past quarter century. In the interests of clarity, I wish to inform the members how the Government decides why it is that some goods should be controlled and others should not.
By way of background let me say that the controls which Canada applies to exports of military and strategic goods to the Warsaw Pact countries, the People's Republic of China, Albania, Viet Nam, Mongolia and North Korea are based on national security considerations, which are co-ordinated or harmonized with the export control programs of a number of allied countries. Canada, along with Japan and its NATO partners, except Iceland, 16 states in all, participates in an international arrangement known as the Co-ordinating Committee on Multilateral Strategic Export Controls or COCOM.
Within COCOM, three international embargo lists have been established by consensus through a negotiating process. These lists define goods and technologies which would make a significant contribution to the military capability of potential adversaries. Goods and technology so identified are thus embargoed or denied to these countries known as COCOM proscribed destinations. The COCOM munitions list, for example, includes equipment that is specially designed for use by the military, while the industrial list is made up of civilian high-technology goods that are considered to have strategic value.
The COCOM lists are used as the basis for the domestic national security controls maintained by each member country. Groups 3 through 8 of Canada's export control list are based principally on the international lists established in COCOM. Thus the Canadian export control listing includes,
April 14, 1987

for example, high precision metal working equipment, high performance computer and telecommunication equipment, encryption equipment, strategic metals and compounds, for example, elemental boron, fluoro-carbon compounds, monocrystalline gallium compounds, also lasers, super thin films, aviation location finding equipment as well as munitions and military supplies and atomic energy materials.
Because controls on strategic and military exports to the Warsaw Pact countries and China are co-ordinated multilaterally within COCOM, Canada's policy in this area is in general accord with the policies of most other western countries. The impact of our controls is, moreover, enhanced by their integration into a multilateral arrangement. This approach has well served Canada's national security, commercial and broad foreign policy interests.
Experience over recent years led the Government to conclude, in the context of the policy review on military exports, that its restrictive policy with respect to military goods exports should not apply equally to the export of strategic goods. Civilian industrial goods are on the export control list as a result of Canada's participation in COCOM. As mentioned earlier, the COCOM controls apply only to exports to certain proscribed destinations which are considered to be potential adversaries. Although there can be no question that exports of all strategic and military goods must be broadly controlled to prevent their diversion to these proscribed destinations, the Government has decided that Canada's policy should more closely conform to the practice of our major trading partners, and particularly those of COCOM members.
For this reason, the policy announcement of September 10, 1986, focused on the export of military goods, particularly to countries involved in or under imminent threat of hostilities, or to countries with persistent records of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens. On the other hand, strategic goods are not seen by the international community as part of the arms trade. It is generally recognized that Governments or private enterprises continue to have legitimate civilian requirements for goods such as telecommunications equipment and advanced computers.
Two special circumstances affect policy toward the export of strategic goods. The first area of concern is national security, and reflects the threat of diversion of strategic goods to the proscribed destinations. The second area of concern is foreign policy, and reflects the Government's abhorrence of the apartheid system in the Republic of South Africa. In this latter instance, exports of military goods and technology are denied to all consignees in that country in recognition of the obligations which Canada assumed in light of the United Nations Security Council Resolution (1977) 418.
The Government has gone one step further with respect to commitments made in the Commonwealth Accord of Nassau of October, 1985, in prohibiting the export of strategic goods to Departments and agencies of the Government of the Republic of South Africa. The cost has been a real one to many Canadians. The Government has refused a number of
Military Equipment Export Restrictions
permits for high technology civilian strategic goods in relation to multimillion dollar contracts where Canadian expertise has been recognized not only in South Africa but also world-wide, not only in South Africa but also world-wide. These permit denials reflect our ongoing commitment to seeking peaceful political change in South Africa.
Just last evening, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced a plan to have the seven major industrialized countries form an eminent persons group to conduct constructive discussions with the leaders of South Africa with the objective of dismantling apartheid in a peaceful, non-violent manner.
Some Canadians believe that Government does not restrict the export of a wide enough range of goods. Other Canadians equally firmly believe that the Government controls the export of far too many goods. This argument finds vocal expression, for example, in the case of exports of goods used by military and paramilitary organizations in countries with a persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens. While this is a difficult issue to resolve, the conclusion reached reflects the Government's belief in the right of nations to defend themselves against external aggression. What is objectionable in the case of exports of military goods to such countries is that this equipment is turned and used against civilians within the country. Therefore, in his policy statement, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) announced that the Government was prepared to consider export permits for military goods to such countries only where there is no reasonable risk that the goods would be used against the civilian population.
Approvals of permit applications which fall within this guideline will not be easily reached. Members may be assured that any permit application will be most carefully scrutinized by the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself only after compelling arguments will have been put forward by this prospective exporter that there is no reasonable risk that the goods would be used against the civilian population. Most applications will, therefore, be denied. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this debate.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon members have had an opportunity to learn about the various aspects of the export control policy of the Government as it applies particularly to the military exports. Indeed, it will come as no surprise to members to learn that in addition to a complex system which processes and reviews applications from Canadian manufacturers and exporters of military goods or of highly sensitive strategic goods, there is an equally complex system to track the movement of control goods both before and subsequent to their export from Canada. This particular issue was raised recently by one member who was expressing some concern about the possibility of Canadian origin military equipment being used in a regional conflict in spite of, or contrary to, Canadian policy in this regard.

April 14, 1987
Royal Assent
In order to reassure the House on this question I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Export and Import Permits Act is Canada's legislation for controlling the export of strategic and military goods. All items which are subject to controls are found on the Export Control List. The definition of what goods are military or strategic was covered in the Minister's policy statement of September 10, 1986, and various members have referred to those definitions this afternoon. Today, various Hon. Members have referred to those definitions. For their part, the definitions used by Canada find their origin in the multilaterally agreed international munitions list which is reflected in Group 7 of our Export Control List and, for strategic goods, are defined by reference to items described in Groups 3 to 8 and 10 of the Export Control List reflecting COCOMs International Embargo Lists.
Before such goods can be exported from Canada, there is a legal requirement under the Act for an export permit. The decision to issue a permit and the conditions under which such a permit would be issued are bound by regulations issued under the Act, policy guidelines issued by the Government, and rules and practices which form part of Canada's multilateral obligations as a member of the Co-ordinating Committee for Multilateral Strategic Export Controls. COCOMs purpose, as Hon. Members may recall, is to co-ordinate and harmonize control over exports of military and strategic goods to certain proscribed destinations which are essentially the Soviet Union and other members of the Warsaw Pact as well as the People's Republic of China, Viet Nam, North Korea and Albania.
In order to ensure that the most sensitive class of exports, including both military goods and technology and the highest level of strategic goods and technology, are not diverted, there is an internationally recognized document issued at present by the Governments of 27 countries. By means of this document, the export control authorities of the importing country acknowledge that they are aware that an importer in their country is importing multilaterally controlled goods from the exporting country. This document, called an International Import Certificate, or IC for short, must correspond in all details with the export permit application or it is not accepted and an export permit application risks immediate refusal.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Deputy Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-28, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (torture)-Chapter No. 13.
Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977- Chapter No. 14.
The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), this order shall be dropped from the Order Paper.