1987-09-11

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, September 1, 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. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to complete my remarks regarding the death of Canagrex.
The only thing that we can hope for is that the Mulroney Government will call an election soon in order that we can get on with re-establishing some form of Canagrex to assist the Canadian family farm, and the small exporters of the country. Based on the results of recent times, I suspect that that is in the offing. I hope that an election is called as soon as possible in order that we can complete this discussion of Canagrex and move to something more positive.
It is important that we recognize what Canagrex did in the very short time that it was in existence. I remember in the winter of 1984, after the Government had shifted, some questions were put to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). One question was, what were the total expenditures on Canagrex? Another question was, what was the result of those expenditures? Did we receive our money's worth? Did the taxpayers of Canada receive what they deserved in terms of their investment in Canagrex?
The Minister of Agriculture advised that the total expenditures to establish Canagrex had amounted to $2.6 million. He then went on to add how delighted he was with the accomplishments of this federal agency. He advised that when the corporation began operations in the spring of 1984, policy focused on facilitating sales by bringing a willing buyer and a seller into a negotiating position rather than on purchasing products or selling for the corporation's account.
I wish to remind Members that Canagrex was not involved in buying and selling agricultural products. That was clearly to be left to the private sector, to the international exporting companies as well as the commodity groups themselves, with one exception. The Hon. Member from Fraser Valley, who is obviously interested in agricultural exports, will remember that many countries arranged food or agricultural exports and imports on a government to government basis, and simply did not work with specific companies or individual firms. For that reason Canagrex was playing a rather unique role, because it could move a Government of Canada arrangement with the government of country x. Again, that would facilitate the export of our excellent agricultural products.
The Hon. Minister went on to say that Canagrex was involved in negotiations leading to the facilitation of sales worth $16 million, and in addition there were transactions in progress worth a potential $100 million to be finalized on March 31, 1985.
Considering the red tape and the hurdles that were thrown up in front of Canagrex in its first few weeks and months of operation, the fact that it accomplished so much in so little time is really quite astounding, quite amazing. The response from the family farms across Canada, and the small exporters was quite phenomenal.
I remember touring my constituency of Kamloops- Shuswap where we raise a lot of food, beef, poultry, poultry by-products, dairy products, berry products, some grains, many vegetables, soft fruits-I could go on in terms of incredibly productive farms; almost inevitably they are family operations, and they were struggling and continue to struggle against the subsidized agricultural exporters of Europe, and particularly the United States. I remember we were up against the American GSM-102 and GSM-105 programs which literally made it impossible for our family farms to compete head to head with the operations in the United States, and particularly in Europe, in countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. We needed some help then, and we still do.

Unless something quite dramatic is done by the Government in a very short period of time, I am afraid that our commitment to the family farm operation in this country will go the way of the dinosaur. We cannot compete under present conditions. We need to recognize the reality of the international commodity market-place. Therefore, I think that Canagrex was a step in the right direction.

September 11, 1987
Canagrex
My hon. friends opposite disagree. That is fair enough; that is why we are here. If we agreed on everything it simply would not be the Parliament of Canada. I say that the track record of Canagrex was second to none.
In digging through my files in preparation for this speech- and perhaps I should have dug a little deeper-I came across the first thing that happened with Canagrex, and it happened day after day. I have a stack of press releases in my office showing the successes of Canagrex. On August 29, 1984, the Minister of Agriculture announced a $50 million line of credit to export the sale of food and agricultural products from Canada. They had facilitated a line of credit with a Canadian bank and a foreign bank which the Minister thought would result in $25 million of Canadian agri-food products flowing out of Canada within a few weeks, including such products as soya bean meal, corn, seed potatoes, beans, and turkeys. This is only one press release, but it is important to remember that these exports would not have taken place had Canagrex not been in the international market-place opening up market opportunities for our farmers.
It did not operate in competition with existing systems. We have private exporters and private firms opening up new markets. We have Agriculture Canada, CIDA, and trade offices trying to find more markets. Canagrex was designed to fill in the cracks, because there were many countries in which we were not-and we still are not-attempting to open up new markets for Canadian food products. We have a long way to
go-
I cannot imagine why anyone would have opposed such a paltry sum of $12.4 million being set aside for Canagrex over a three-year period to facilitate this federal agency in the opening of new markets. I have not met a single person in the food producing sector who says that Canada should not have a federal agency like every other food producing country in the western world to facilitate the establishment of new markets.
Where is the evidence that this is wrong? One of the last farm groups to appear before the committee when we looked at the demise of Canagrex was the National Farmers Union, represented by Mr. Wayne Easter. He indicated how this was a slap in the face to Canadian farmers.
In some sectors the industry is virtually in a crisis or emergency situation. In many respects it requires rescue money because of the problems in which it finds itself. However, here was a relatively inexpensive initiative to provide assistance to the family farm operation in east, west and central Canada. However, the Conservative Government mysteriously wants to abandon this initiative. It was given a paltry sum of $12.4 million over a three-year period, and now we are driving the last spike into the coffin of Canagrex.
In conclusion, every shred of evidence when it comes to Canagrex indicates that it is a good idea, concept, and initiative. It is a good agency. It is something the Government of Canada could be and should be doing for our farmers, not
abandoning the agency and by definition abandoning Canadian food producers who rank highest in the world in terms of their ability to produce food in efficient and effective ways.
I look forward to the demise of the Progressive Conservative Government so that whatever replaces it-and hopefully it will be a New Democratic Party Government-will be able to reinstitute a new version of Canagrex, a version which will enable it to fulfil its mandate to assist the family farm operation in Canada.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) spent some time talking about the role which Canagrex was attempting to play before the Government brought it to an untimely end.
I should like to note that the decision to oppose Canagrex came slowly to the Conservatives. Upon the introduction of the Bill by the then Minister of Agriculture, Eugene Whelan, the then House Leader of the Conservative Party, Erik Nielsen, in a very unusual step, rose in the House and welcomed the initiative on behalf of the Government and indicated that Canagrex was something for which the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) had been preparing when he was Minister of Agriculture in the short term 1979 Conservative Government. He indicated that his Party welcomed with open arms the initiative.
The first several speakers from the Tory benches in that period of time also spoke in favour of Canagrex, until the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre, the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), made a speech damning the whole concept. Conservative attitudes gradually changed until they became very firmly entrenched against the institution of Canagrex.
One reason for indicating that it was not necessary in their opinion was that we have commercial counsellors in some of our embassies overseas who can direct interest in agricultural business back to Canada. These counsellors have been at work since the demise of Canagrex, and there has virtually been no indication that their work has resulted in more exports. On occasion they contact the Canadian Wheat Board, which is one of the better marketing agencies in the world. They are able to complete sales, but these commercial counsellors have no one to turn to for other commodities. That was a role Canagrex could play.
One of the first things it did was to establish with the buyers and sellers in the industry the fact that Canagrex would play a facilitating role and that the buying, selling, and taking of commissions, an important concern of the Minister of Finance, would be left as is. Canagrex was simply to have the list of buyers and sellers and put the two together, and normal commercial channels would carry out the actual finalization of sales.
Canagrex no longer exists as a facilitator. Unfortunately for trading operations that spoke against Canagrex, they do not have the business. Nobody gains.

Could the Hon. Member tell me what advantage the country seems to be getting now that the Conservative Government has done away with Canagrex? How do honey producers complete sales overseas? How do potato producers or some of the small bean operators do so when they do not have a very large marketing organization of their own?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) has put his finger on the nub of the problem. The clientele of Canagrex tended to be small, independent producers, the fledgling enterprises in our producing sector that were trying to get established; in other words, where the growth and the future of agriculture lie. Canagrex was really interested in helping these groups, individuals, and organizations. Large agricultural organizations had their markets established and perhaps did not need the same kind of assistance.
I should like to refer to a press release when the Government first indicated that it planned to do away with Canagrex. It noted that Canagrex saw the need for a federal agency that would facilitate the export of Canadian foodstuffs. Farmers and small exporters defended it enthusiastically while larger established corporate agriculture opposed it, and here perhaps we have the real essence of the matter.
The large corporate agri-business said, "We don't want any more competition, we have the market sewn up, the financial cash flows, the organizations, the cartels and monopolies in place. We don't want competition. We don't want the small enterpriser, the small operator or the small exporter getting involved. We have been working on this for a long time and we have it set up."
But whose side ought we be on? Whose side should Parliament be supporting, large agri-corporate business or the small independent producer? We say we should be supporting the small independent producer whenever and wherever possible. We should be assisting that individual farmer, that small agency, the small co-op. That is who we should be supporting, not agri-business. Is the Government saying in this Bill that we support our corporate friends but we are prepared to abandon the small family farm?


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a producing country. Agriculture is very important for our economy. We are fighting the demise of the family farm. We want to see agriculture remain a very important part of Canada. That is why we are very disturbed with the sudden death of Canagrex, a death ordered by the Conservative Government in spite of the fact that in times past when the Conservatives were a little more practical they were in favour of Canagrex.
Why were the Conservatives in favour and why did they change their minds? They were in favour of Canagrex for the same reasons we were initially-there was a clear need for it.
Canagrex
Marketing boards did not cover all subjects. Independent producers needed assistance in selling their produce.
In 1982 we had $9.5 billion worth of exports in agriculture and a surplus of $3.1 billion, 60 per cent of which was in grains and oilseeds with a very serious trade deficit in the non-grain area of $2 billion. There was an opportunity to do something about that; to improve our exports in the other areas, those outside wheat where there are strong marketing facilities already through the Wheat Board. Canagrex was to fill this gap in our marketing strategy. To have a sane agricultural policy we must have production and marketing. It does not make sense to have one without the other. A comprehensive policy and very practical measures are needed to ensure that the whole system works, and Canagrex was designed to fill that gap.
Interestingly when the Bill was introduced at first reading, the Conservatives supported it. The Bill was brought in by the Liberals and at that time at first reading the Conservative House Leader rose to speak and pointed out that the Conservatives in the brief period they were in government had already worked on Canagrex and were in favour of it. The Conservatives were trying to do practical things at that time. Then suddenly, midstage, for ideological reasons, there was an about-face. The Conservatives opposed Canagrex. When the Conservatives returned to office in 1984, Canagrex had already been set up. It had not been in operation very long. Suddenly the Conservative Government wanted to chop it and indeed it did. The Government did not give Canagrex a chance to show how effective it could be. The decision was made within a matter of months and Canagrex was told to wind up its operation.
In the very brief time that Canagrex was in operation, however, it was beginning to have a positive impact which was helping farmers. Built into the legislation was the fact that buying and selling would be left to the private sector and Canagrex's objective was to facilitate sales and provide information. Canagrex gathered the information. It prepared a survey of Canadian commodities available for export. This important information was essential, especially since the number of commodities in surplus supply or which were available for export since 1984 was very limited. That source list of Canadian commodities is probably the most comprehensive and up to date available anywhere today.
Canagrex developed a market survey program. This meant in-depth research on specific market areas which were considered to be potentially promising for Canadian farm exports. The market research people travelled to countries accompanied by producers who could talk about their products on the spot. For example, Canagrex had a pork producer accompany its mission to Singapore and a potato producer travelled to Cuba for sales. Canagrex prepared comprehensive studies to identify market prospects for a number of important export commodities. A major study was prepared on pork, which was well-received by the Canadian industry. Other studies were prepared on the export potential for honey and

September 11, 1987
Canagrex
processed foods. Again, these studies were done in co-operation with the industry groups. The people in the know, doing the work and producing, had input into sales preparation.
Canagrex undertook a program to stimulate export sales abroad. It defrayed some of the costs involved in transporting high quality breeding swine to Italy on the understanding that out of any subsequent sales Canagrex would recover its expenses. There was a happy result from this one. The Canadian swine won several medals at a Milan exhibition and foreign buyers visited Canada to investigate further purchases. This very modest initiative resulted in buyers coming to Canada to make their own deals of Canadian stock purchases.
Another example was a buyers credit guarantee program. Under this program Canagrex agreed to share a certain amount of the risk involved in providing credit to a buyer to purchase Canadian agricultural commodities in addition to its normal purchases. Under this program, Canagrex sought to have the risks shared among the exporters, the banks or the insurance companies and the foreign buyer. A Canagrex guarantee was provided when it was deemed absolutely necessary. It was to be used sparingly but available as one thing that could be done to increase exports for our producers. A combination of aid and trade at lower effective interest rates was part of the strategy.
In certain instances Canagrex was faced with similar programs offered by the French, German and British Governments which made selling certain commodities on a cash basis virtually impossible. Our producers have to compete with producers in other countries. When other countries have programs supporting their producers, we fail our producers if we do not meet them in kind. Our producers, especially grain producers, face the enormous subsidy programs that other countries have for their producers. That is the world, and how very nice it would be to change it and change the rules, but while other countries are providing support, we have to ensure that our own producers do not lose out in the process.
Canadian agricultural exporters were desperate for some assistance to maintain and increase their market sales and Canagrex was there to help in situations when other countries were able to do very much more for their producers.
One of the things that is most disturbing about the Government is the very rapid way it has proceeded without consultation. It made a decision on ideological grounds. The agency had been set up, it was starting to work and to be effective. The Government did not give it a chance to complete a fiscal year and have a proper review of its successes to that date. The Government did not call for public hearings or ask the producers what they wanted done. Nor did it ask the Canagrex people themselves. The decision was made, the guillotine fell and that was tough luck.
But that is not an appropriate way to operate, Mr. Speaker. People were in place making a contribution and doing the job that Parliament gave them to do. It seems to me that it would have been very much more sensible if the Conservatives felt for
ideological reasons that they were against Canagrex to review the situation and look at the actual record before making the decision. Why not at least ensure that the right decision is being made? We in this Party do not like to see these kinds of abstract, ideological decisions made without reference to the actual facts, the real situation in the industry itself.
Certainly the farmers themselves and the National Farmers Union, for example, were very concerned that they were not consulted. Wayne Easter, the President of the National Farmers Union, criticized the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for playing politics in his Budget speech and for moving so quickly to eliminate the newly created Crown agency. He said:
"The new government is obviously playing politics," explained Easter. "While the Tories were opposed to the creation of Canagrex on ideological grounds, there is no justification for closing down the agency while it is still in its infancy. Canagrex should be given some time to prove its worth both to farmers and to the Canadian public."
It seems to me that that is a perfectly reasonable approach. Even in the face of the Conservative ideological position, the Government could have held off for a few months and given Canagrex a chance. It could have given the producers themselves the opportunity to say whether or not it was helping their sales abroad.
The National Farmers Union President noted that the move to slash Canagrex illustrated the Government's misguided priorities in regard to the agriculture sector. Rather than taking action on very pressing issues like farm finance, low commodity prices and interest rates, the Government chose instead to talk about the problem. Other areas which would more properly be dealt with through greater discussion, such as Canagrex, were instead subjected to immediate and damaging action.
I think this is one of the things we are concerned about. Prompt action was taken for ideological reasons on something that was not a problem. We certainly have not had any reason to think that there was a problem with Canagrex because it was not in operation for long enough to see if it was a problem. Certainly the First reports indicated that Canagrex was acting efficiently and effectively. Yet all these other far more important problems were not dealt with. Problems like farmers losing their farms, suffering from low prices and not being able to pay off their bank loans are crucial problems, but they are being neglected so that the Conservatives can pursue a policy determined abstractly in a back room somewhere after reading the works of Margaret Thatcher or something to that effect.
The President of the National Farmers Union suggested that the Government should at least have waited until March 31, the end of the Government's fiscal year, in order to give the agency time to get established. Then the more appropriate course would have been to put Canagrex on the carpet by holding public hearings to assess the value of the agency. Bygiving Canagrex the opportunity to justify its existence and by
September 11, 1987

allowing farmers to make an informed choice on whether or not the agency is worth while, an educated decision could have been made.
I am sorry to see that the decision that has been made is not an educated one. It is an abstract, theoretical, ideological decision and that is not what Canadians want. Canadians want practicality, particularly for smaller, independent producers who do not have big business behind them, the ones who do not have access to stronger marketing agencies. Those are the people Parliament ought to have foremost in its mind when providing assistance to agriculture.
There seems to be no doubt among people who have followed Canagrex's very short career that even during the period it was in operation, it demonstrated that there was an important need for export assistance for agricultural producers. Most other sectors of Canada's exporting community have specific instruments which can provide assistance in selling their products abroad. Of course, in big business, the corporations themselves are strong. In other sectors, there is government assistance in marketing.
For example, the industrial sector has the Export Development Corporation which has a budget that allows it to provide enormous assistance by way of loans, insurance, marketing advice and contacts. All of these kinds of things are provided in other sectors. It seems to be extremely unfair that this very modest agency in the agricultural sector with its very small budget which had begun to meet a need should be chopped.
Producers need assistance in selling their very fine products. The problem is not with production, it is with exports. The problem is in getting those crops out into the markets and starting to reverse the very substantial trade deficit in nongrain agricultural products. This of course can be absolutely vital to the economy.
We already have efficient producers in the renewable resources. We depend so much for our exports on resources that are not renewable while agriculture is renewable. This is the kind of economic measure we would like to see developed. We want to see more emphasis put on renewable resources in a concerted way through production, sales and marketing to ensure that our producers can actually sell their products abroad.
The producers of military products and capital projects have another Crown corporation, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which provides them specific assistance in implementing projects abroad. This sector that is not making the same kind of wholesome contribution is favoured by government assistance in marketing its products.
The need for Canagrex was recognized because the agricultural community had no instrument available to it that could provide assistance in attacking the complex world of international trade. It was apparent that the agricultural community, considered by some to be the least sophisticated in looking beyond Canada's borders for foreign markets, needed expertise
Canagrex
and financial instruments to open up new opportunities for its very excellent producers, who needed to widen their markets so they could get their products sold. This would have reversed the trade deficit in non-grain agricultural products.
The Minister of Agriculture at the time Canagrex was brought in, the Hon. Eugene Whelan, had held the portfolio for some 12 years and had recognized very soon after his appointment that Canada had not recognized its potential as a bread-basket of the world. In the late 1970s, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture complained about missed opportunities for Canadian producers in export markets. It was also seen that most other major agricultural exporting nations had organizations as part of their Governments or created by their Governments to provide export assistance in agriculture.
Seeing what other countries were doing and recognizing pressure from the producers, Canada finally moved in the late 1970s and eventually in 1981, brought Canagrex in for approval. We were finally starting to give our farmers the kind of assistance that other countries were giving theirs.
I can see that my time is just about up. I want to register very clearly my opposition and that of my Party to this very precipitous move on the part of the Government to chop Canagrex before it has had a chance to prove itself in a concerted way, and after initial reports of its success have shown that it was making a contribution. In fact, it was acting as producers had hoped it would. It was acting as an advocate for agriculture. I will certainly be opposing the Government's move to shut down this agency that our producers very much need.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the speech of the Hon. Member. I want to compliment her for speaking so eloquently about this erroneous initiative on the part of the Tories. It is not the first time they have been wrong-headed, as you know, being the objective person you are.
The Tories want to abolish Canagrex at a time when there has been an onslaught of farm subsidies by the U.S. It comes at a time when the U.S. is taking a particular initiative, one we do not like, in assisting its farmers in the export market. I am thinking of the provisions of the U.S. Farm Bill, specifically designed to displace the exports of other countries. This has the effect of lowering commodity prices for our farmers. At the same time our Government is embarking on another wrong-headed initiative, the free trade negotiations.
Given all that, would it not be more appropriate for the Tories to support Canagrex in order to increase our multilateral trade and ensure that we do not become even more dependent upon the U.S. than we are now? We would have some ability to defend ourselves when the U.S., or any other country for that matter, brings in the kind of initiatives we see in the

September 11, 1987
Canagrex
U.S. Farm Bill which amount to some $70 billion worth of subsidies to displace the exports of other countries.
Would the Hon. Member not agree that the Government would be far better advised to dp that rather than take this approach which has lost them support both federally and provincially, as we saw last night?


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a number of extremely important questions in his remarks. I share the suspicion of many people that the abolition of Canagrex is perhaps one offering by the Conservative Party to the Americans in order to obtain a free trade deal. The Government likes to say it is not, but of course we are not in the room when these things are discussed so we cannot verify it one way or another.
Pursuing a trade deal with the U.S. will mean we will be dominated even more by the American economy. The U.S. is already our major trading partner and probably will be for the foreseeable future, but we would like to see more multilateral trade and a diversification of our export markets. Canagrex would have been part of that diversification. In a sense it is needed now more than ever.
The Hon. Member referred to the mass of subsidies to American producers. While Canagrex by itself cannot cope with that kind of situation, it would at least help our farmers market their products around the world. We need to be diversifying into new markets and Canagrex would help us achieve that goal.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 represent an urban constituency but I feel it important that I speak on this issue because so many of the people I represent work for the railways or work in the plants which produce agricultural machinery. Their well-being is to a large extent dependent upon the well-being of the farmers they serve.
I could not help but be surprised by the laughter from the Conservative benches when my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), spoke in support of this Bill. It seems to me that our Conservative friends will never learn, no matter what happens to them. Given the disaster they suffered yesterday in the Province of Ontario where they went from governing that province for more than 40 years to being the third Party, surely they should have realized that the people have demonstrated that they do not accept the Conservative philosophy that the best Government is a Government that does the least; just let the free enterprise system operate without interference or direction by Government and everything will be fine according to the Conservatives. Surely they should have learned from yesterday's election, as they will learn in the soon to be held New Brunswick election, that the people of Canada do not accept that principle and are not going to support a Party which endorses it.
We are not living in paradise. We are not living in some theoretical world. The facts of life are that almost every country, whether it has a Government of the supposed right or
left, has intervened very substantially to help its agricultural sector. Whether it be the U.S., France, Germany, Great Britain or Japan, to mention just a few of the major countries, it is realized that the free enterprise system does not always work in ways which help people. For that reason they have all become involved in a variety of ways, through tariffs, quotas or the extension of cheap credit, in plans to help their people.
Let us look just at agriculture. The world is producing more food than it ever did before and we have more hungry people. It has been estimated that there are at least 500 million hungry people in the world. We have great food surpluses, not because people do not need the food but because many of those people cannot afford to buy it.
The agricultural sector of our economy is in great trouble. When our grain farmers can sell their grain they are selling it at the lowest prices we have seen since the hungry thirties. They are taking a loss on every bushel of grain they sell. Our fruit farmers, vegetable farmers and dairy farmers are all in great difficulty, not because they are not efficient and cannot produce a high quality product but because of the support given to farmers of other countries.
The Americans have taken over markets which Canada has had for many years by subsidizing the price of grain to their farmers. The European Economic Community has mountains of butter because it has subsidized the production of it as it has beef and many other products. That is the situation our farmers have to face.
It is not as though our governments, federal and provincial, have followed the free market approach in the field of agriculture. We have marketing boards and agencies at both levels established over the years by Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Parti Quebecois and Social Credit governments. Most of those governments believed in a free enterprise system but realized that the reality of life for agricultural producers is that we need forms of supply management if farmers are to continue to produce and not have to cut back on their standard of living or declare bankruptcy, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of them have done.
Canagrex was one of the few good ideas brought forward by the former Liberal Government. It was a way of helping Canadian farmers sell their products on the export markets. That proposal received the support of a number of the major farm organizations in this country. The President of the National Farmers Union, Mr. Wayne Easter, said in a statement issued March 14, 1985:
The Canadian farmer for which Canagrex was established deserves better, and the federal government's unwillingness to consult either the industry or Canagrex officials prior to the November 8/84 announcement by the Minister of Agriculture is nothing more than a slap in the face to farmers across Canada.
He was talking, of course, about the announcement by the Conservative Government that it proposed to do away with Canagrex.
September 11, 1987

The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the Manitoba Wheat Pool, which represent a majority of the grain farmers in those two provinces, have spoken up in favour of the establishment and continued operation of Canagrex.
We must ask ourselves why the Government is doing this. It is doing it, as 1 have indicated, in part because of its fixation with the idea that the free enterprise system and getting government out of the running of the economy as much as possible is a fundamental part of its principle? Another reason was mentioned by my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood. She talked about the insane desire and determination of the Conservative Government to press ahead for a free trade agreement with the United States on almost any terms.
Last night on The National, after quite a bit of time spent relating the disaster which the Conservatives suffered in the Ontario election, we heard some news from Washington. In answer to a question from Republican Senator Lugar of Indiana and the American Secretary of State, George Shultz, made it very clear that the United States would not agree, in a free trade agreement with Canada, to give up the power which the American Congress has to countervail. What kind of free trade agreement will we have if every time some American industry believes it is being hurt by Canadian competition it can put on a tariff?
We need only look at the Province of Saskatchewan. There was no stronger supporter of free trade than Conservative Premier Devine of Saskatchewan. When the producers of potash in New Mexico said that they could not compete with the much more efficient potash industry in Saskatchewan a tariff of 68 per cent, if my memory is correct, was suddenly imposed.
That great defender of free trade, Mr. Devine, then brought in legislation which no federal or provincial government in Canada has ever before brought forward. I am not being critical. I am not sure he made the right decision, but he realized he had to take very drastic action to protect that industry which has sales of several billion dollars a year and employs 4,000 Saskatchewan workers. This approach to free trade is another illustration of the absolute irresponsibility and stupidity of the Conservative Government.
Some may have thought that Canagrex, which was established by the Liberal Government with the approval of the NDP and the initial approval at least of the Conservatives, would eliminate the private sector and interfere with the ability of the private companies involved in the grain, beef or pork industries to continue to operate as they always have. Nothing could be further from the truth. The role of Canagrex was simply to help the Canadian producers of grain, pork, beef and tobacco, and the companies involved in those industries, to make sales overseas. It was beginning to play a very useful and important role until the Government, in its mad insistence on
the free enterprise system, decided that Canagrex should be abolished.
Mr. Speaker, it is 11 o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 19(4) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Today, Mr. Speaker, I have a request to make to the Minister responsible for citizenship. I am referring to Mrs. Iris Padilla Mason who was born in Santiago, Chile, who taught for 20 years, and who was imprisoned in 1974.
On the occasion of the international Liberal meeting she came to make representations this morning and to tell us how she had been victimized, but also to ask for her Canadian citizenship. She first came to Canada in 1976 as a refugee and then became an immigrant, but she has been unable to obtain her citizenship papers. She told us that for two years now she has been making every attempt to become a Canadian citizen but that the Department has failed to respond.
I therefore urge the Minister responsible for citizenship-I know he gives due consideration to such requests!-to pay particular attention to the case of Mrs. Iris Padilla Mason.



PROSTITUTION


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the appreciation of the House of Commons ought to be extended to the police forces of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa who have co-operated successfully to break up a juvenile prostitution ring which was operating in those cities.
The very idea of child prostitution is abhorrent to Canadians, and adults who lure children into the practice and then live off the avails should be dealt with as forcefully as the law allows. Since many of the young people involved in this particular case were wards of the Children's Aid Society, perhaps there is a need to review our system of child welfare.

September 11, 1987



S. O. 21 HEALTH IRRADIATION OF FOOD-COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Mir. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, the committee investigating the irradiation of food in Canada studied the issue for many months. It received many briefs and held hearings in Ottawa and other parts of Canada.
The evidence which they examined included over 800 studies of the food irradiation issue. The overwhelming majority of those studies either opposed food irradiation or were neutral in terms of posing all sorts of unanswered questions regarding the irradiation of food. Those very few in favour tended to be linked in some way to the nuclear industry.
After hard work in a non-partisan atmosphere, the committee made important recommendations to the Minister and the Government regarding what it should do in terms of food irradiation. Yesterday, the Minister essentially turned his back on the recommendations and has ignored them all.
At a time when states in the U.S. are passing legislation to ban the irradiation of food and when other countries are looking into it and seriously considering similar steps, Canada appears to be moving ahead. I urge the Minister to consider the recommendations of the committee and accept them.


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, this morning, together with my colleagues, the Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner), the Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), and the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), I attended a breakfast with 1,000 volunteers to kick off the United Way campaign in Ottawa-Carleton. This year the goal is some $9.2 million in support of 70 programs delivered through 48 agencies.
The United Way is a volunteer non-profit organization that pulls our community together. It matches the human care needs with our resources through one annual fund-raising drive. Volunteers determine its standards, direction, and priorities.
Mr. Speaker, I welcomed your recent endorsement of the United Way campaign among employees who work for Parliament.
Similar campaigns will be starting all across Canada. As Members of Parliament, I urge each of us to recognize their importance and to support this most valuable program in our towns and cities across the nation.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry

Prescott-Russell): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the people of Ontario gave this province its first majority Liberal Government in 50 years. They did so with a resounding majority. They said no to Larry Grossman's pro free trade, anti-bilingualism campaign. This morning there is nothing left to do but to sweep up the blue ashes.
The messiah from Oshawa, who leads the NDP in Ottawa, was no more successful as his Party lost a large number of seats in this provincial election, under the great Liberal tide that swept Ontario yesterday.
Throughout Ontario, from Prescott-Russell to the southwestern part of our province, and from the north to Lake Ontario, the people said no to Larry Grossman and said yes to David Peterson. They said yes to good Liberal government, and very shortly the same people will say no to those Tory pro freetraders from Ottawa and will say yes to another great Liberal Party led by the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to draw the attention of the House to a major and notable achievement which has received very little publicity in Canada, except from the sports media. Last June, Hull athlete Michel Careau accumulated more miles in an organized race than any other Canadian marathoner or ultramarathoner. In fact, he came in second in the New York race, which puts him in second place among the best runners in the world over very long distances. Only three runners have succeeded in breaking the psychological 1,000-mile barrier in a race against the clock: The winner, Marty Sprengelmeyer of the United States, Michel Careau of Canada in second place, and Dan Coffey of Britain in third place.
Mr. Careau, a senior public servant at the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, often takes part in races held for charity and humanitarian causes. Last August 8, he made a speech on peace at the United Nations on the occasion of an international race for peace held in 57 countries.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to join with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who is very proud and happy to have Mr. Michel Careau on his team, in paying a public tribute to this great Canadian who brings us honour, not only in Canada, but everywhere he goes to run against the best known athletes in the sport of long distance running.
September 11, 1987



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Post Office's policy of franchising rural post offices is not only causing a loss of service in rural Canada, it is also bringing about drastic cuts in income for rural post office employees.
If that is not enough to call this policy into question, we must keep in mind the fact that 80 per cent of post office workers in rural Canada are women.
Will the Government continue the policy of asking women to subsidize Canadian society unfairly? Will it fight the deficit in the Post Office on the backs of women who, in some cases, are being asked to have their wages cut by one-fifth? It is time for this injustice to stop.
It is time to question the policy of franchising when, rather than achieve equality, it increases inequality for women in our society.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, last week, the Young Farmers' Regional Centre of the Lac-Saint-Jean constituency launched the game "Defi-Releve".
The purpose of this game is to make players aware of the difficulties of farming. It also provides information on the farming relief groups in Quebec and explains the work of the farmer, in addition to promoting dialogue in farming families and educating people who are not familiar with farming.
I wish to underline the information and popularization effort this game represents.
The farming community is of vital importance for Canada and it is essential for the whole population to know something about it, and I believe that this game can contribute to this end. Congratulations on this initiative!



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte Marie):: Both as a Canadian and Francophone Quebecer, Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the choice Ontario people made yesterday. I am
proud not because they elected Liberals-that is for sure-but because they rejected all those who opposed bilingualism. They rejected outright and unquestionably all those men and women who would not progress with the Canadian people as a whole. You can rest assured that as a Francophone Quebecer, I am proud and I congratulate my federal colleagues from Ontario, as well as the people from Ontario for their choice. As the Honourable Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) was saying, the Ontario people have heard the message of such pioneers as the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier and the Hon. Member for Glengarrry-Prescott-Russell who have fought for the Francophone minority. I think that as Quebecers, we can be proud to have remained in Canada!



MARINE SAFETY


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, of the many reasons for the Mulroney Government's unpopularity, one reason must surely be because of its continued efforts to automate Canada's lightstations in order to end the long tradition of service performed by our nation's lightkeepers. This week the government-appointed Leblond review on the impact of destaffing the B.C. lightstations concluded: "Sufficient evidence has been found to conclude that a human presence is not absolutely necessary to keep lights and foghorns functioning at a satisfactory level of reliability".
While this view may agree with the continued wish of the Mulroney Government to eliminate important services wherever and whenever possible, it is not the view of ordinary British Columbians. The British Columbians who sail our coast have spoken with one voice against any further decrease in marine safety and against the elimination of lightkeepers.
Lightkeepers have logged hundreds upon hundreds of hours of lifesaving search and rescue work, work that could never be done by a machine. No one but this Government has been willing to suggest that lightkeepers are a waste of money and that their functions should be automated.
One month from now the Coast Guard will table its final plans for de-staffing West Coast lightstations. As long as the reliability of automated equipment remains in doubt, as long as lightkeepers continue to deliver an important service to our nation's mariners, the Government must give up its life-threatening policy of ignoring the needs of our coastal residents.
No more closures. No more reductions. British Columbians say that today and they will say it again in the next election.

September 11, 1987
8864_____________________________
5. O. 21 THE SENATE



CALL FOR PASSAGE OF BILL C-22 TO AMEND PATENT ACT

Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the unelected Senate has decided to stall Bill C-22 by referring it to its Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. I agree the Senate does have a role to play, but by sending Bill C-22 back the first time with amendments, it has already utilized its powers. It has not been elected by Canadians to be the Government, and by repeating its tactics it just serves to prove that changes must be made to the Upper Chamber.
The facts are clear. The same committee, which is now going to examine the legislation, refused to pre-study it last November 28. After more than 150 hours of Senate debate, there is now nothing further to study or review. This legislation has also received more time in debate in our Chamber than any other Bill this session.
The Senate is jeopardizing at least 3,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in investment. By its first delay alone, companies which had announced plans to expand operations pending the passage of Bill C-22 have now had to put their plans on hold. Universities and teaching hospitals were also counting on the millions of dollars in promised new research funds for this fall's curricula and programs. They must now wait longer.
This Government was elected by the majority of Canadians who want research and development to grow in Canada. The Senate does not have the support of any one in this country to continue stalling Bill C-22. It does not even have the support of its Leader, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). I call on Members of the other Chamber to come to their senses and pass Bill C-22.



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, next week Deng Pufang, the son of Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, is visiting Canada. I would like to welcome him to Canada. This is an important visit. Mr. Deng is the Director General of the China Welfare Fund for the Handicapped. He himself is handicapped. He is confined to a wheelchair after being crippled when he was thrown out of an upper-storey window at Beijing University during the excesses of the Cultural Revolution. He is returning to Ottawa where he was treated in the Ottawa Civic Hospital.
Our relations with China are very important. I think it will be the country of the 21st Century, along with Canada. We have made great progress in Canada, particularly in the House of Commons, with our facilities for the handicapped in the last couple of years. Let us show Mr. Deng the progress we have
made. Let us co-operate with the Chinese so we can perhaps give to them some of the ideas we have developed, and they can use them in their own country where there are 20 million handicapped people.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised this morning to learn that StatsCan keeps an index on help-wanted ads. However, I was not surprised to learn what that index shows. For the fourth month in a row the number of help-wanted ads in Canada has increased. That shows there are jobs around. In Ontario we are having difficulty filling construction jobs and jobs in the service industry. There is a prosperity in Canada that began September 4, 1984, when this Government was elected.
Our Leader was laughed at for promising "jobs, jobs, jobs". What a laugh for a million jobs! Our prosperity will continue as long as we have the good management of this Government. I know the confidence of all Canadians has been restored with respect to investment in Canada.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in the Ottawa Citizen this morning there is a Canadian Press article which states:
The New Democratic Party's external affairs spokesman said Thursday her
Party supports the use of violence by black Africans as a way to end South
Africa's apartheid regime.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that I spent many years living and working in east and central Africa. I have travelled throughout most of Commonwealth Africa. I ask you, Sir, the question: is violence the key to the solution in Uganda, Chad, Zaire or the Sudan? It is certainly not the key to the solution, and it is also not the key to the solution in Central America where there is tremendous violence going on.
The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) went on to say that sometimes a resort to violence is absolutely essential in the struggle. That may be true, but to endorse violence in the House of Commons of Canada is completely barbaric and unacceptable. This comes from the Party that wanted to invade St. Pierre and Miquelon, that wanted to bring in the gunboats and go to war with France over the fishing disagreement between Newfoundland and Canada. That is absolutely unbelievable. It calls itself the
September 11, 1987

Party of the common people. Pretty soon it is going to be inciting violence in Canada against some policies of the Government of Canada.
Now I know why the New Democrats want to pull out of NATO and NORAD and bring the troops home, because they are going to incite violence in Canada because they disagree with some of the things we as the Government are doing. This is unbelievable.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Conservative position on South Africa is all over the map, and I want to give the Government another opportunity to come clean with Canadians. The Prime Minister, to the great applause of the United Nations at the session two years ago, promised total economic sanctions. He promised a breach of diplomatic relations if the situation continued to deteriorate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Take a stand today. Don't wimp out.


John Napier Turner: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has taken a different position. He did impose some sanctions. He now says that sanctions are not the answer. Yet he admits that Canada believes that the situation in South Africa is deteriorating.
I heard an interjection from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. The official position of the New Democratic Party on South Africa is dangerous. The NDP says that severing diplomatic relations with South Africa would be too harsh, yet it supports violence as a solution.
Does the Government reject violence out of hand as a solution to the South Africa problem? And when will the Prime Minister get the Government's act together, fulfil the commitment made to the United Nations, and advance the case in Vancouver that there must be total diplomatic sanctions and there has to be a breach of diplomatic relations, on a firm schedule?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the position articulated by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is, in my judgment, calculated to achieve headlines in Canada rather than progress in South Africa.
What we are attempting to do is to continue to build pressure for change, pressure upon the South African Government to bring an end to the apartheid regime. We have been able to use Canada's influence constructively in that regard at
Oral Questions
Nassau, and at the Venice Summit. We expect to be able to contribute substantially and significantly to that process at the Heads of Government meeting in Vancouver.
With regard to the position concerning violence, I made that position clear yesterday in response to the NDP endorsement of violence.


VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF BLACK AFRICANS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister received his share of favourable headlines two years ago when he made his speech in the United Nations to which I referred.
I met with Oliver Tambo recently, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister had their own meeting with him. Mr. Tambo did not ask me to have Canada provide military aid to the front-line states, nor did he ask Canada to encourage violence. What he asked our country for was an imposition of total economic sanctions and for a breach of diplomatic relations. The Prime Minister said he would impose such sanctions, both economically and diplomatically, if the situation deteriorated.
The prime and moral issue for the world is that the human rights of 26 million black Africans are being violated and trampled upon year by year, month by month, and day by day.
Therefore, why has the Prime Minister reversed the position he advanced on behalf of Canada at the United Nations, and why is the Government not fulfilling that commitment?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I say, with all affection for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, that if he wishes to improve his standing in the country, he should choose some other issue. The charge he is making against the Prime Minister is not only false, but it is known to be false across this country and, more important, it is known to be false across and throughout Africa.
Under this Prime Minister the constructive role that Canada has played in attempting to build effective pressure against South Africa to bring about an end to apartheid is understood, for example, by President Houphouet-Boigny of Cote d'Ivoire, it is understood by President Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, and it is understood by President Chissano of Mozambique. It is understood in the front-line states throughout Africa.
They may not understand the imperative of a Canadian politician seeking headlines at home, but they understand and applaud what Canada is doing internationally.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: With the greatest respect, if not affection, that I have for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I am not misstating the position of the Prime

September 11, 1987
Oral Questions
Minister; I am reciting his speech to the United Nations on behalf of our country. That record will bear me out.


SOUTH AFRICA-IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS-CONSEQUENCES FOR CANADA
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Government claims that our country will lose its influence if we impose total economic sanctions or break off diplomatic ties with South Africa. But what influence did we have in South Africa over the past two years? And what influence are we going to lose by insisting on a moral position on human rights in South Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Again, Mr. Speaker, I can quote the words of South Africa United Democratic Front spokesman Alan Boesack. I had a meeting with Mr. Boesack when I was there and he stated that the activities of Canada, and even my presence in South Africa, were a strong encouragement to those who are opposed to apartheid in South Africa.
I can also indicate that since the Commonwealth Conference in Nassau the Canadian Government has played a leading role by establishing a sanction program endorsed by the Commonwealth and the United States, and adopted in part by the European Economic Community.
There have been sanctions with an economic impact in South Africa. There have been sanctions with a psychological impact in South Africa. What we must seek now are other means to maintain pressure. Leaving the House is no way to maintain pressure.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and deals with the George Grossmann issue. The House was recalled as a matter of emergency this summer to consider two Bills, C-84 and C-85, in order to put an end to so-called immigration abuses. They have been considered and passed. Everyone says that in the Georges Grossmann case, there were three interventions-one at least from the Minister's office, and another one from the Prime Minister's Office, to speed up matters and have Mr. Grossmann's application jump the line.
I am asking the Deputy Prime Minister, today in all fairness and in order to clear up the matter, whether he does not feel the time has come to refer the whole matter to a public commission of inquiry in order to shed full light on this case.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, again let me categorically repudiate those allegations of impropriety or illegality which I have clearly set out this week.
Over 7,000 letters are received by my office. There are criteria under which certain concerns may be considered, usually on humanitarian and compassionate conditions. In Mr. Grossmann's case I will again clearly lay out what took place for those who were not with us yesterday.
In January a letter was referred to my office for our attention. In the month of May I decided to proceed with inland processing by asking that the Deputy Minister see that a Minister's permit was issued. From then on nothing further has to be done on my part, it is a routine and normal processing. I do not follow it up. I know that all goes well. I know that this takes place over 15,000 times a year, 99 per cent of the time by officials who advance such a permit.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Jean-Robert Gauthier: On that issue I side with Renaud Paquet, the president of the union, who stated yesterday that "when we receive a letter from the Prime Minister's Office it has more impact than a letter that is received from anybody else". The Minister has to admit that fact. In this case the Prime Minister's Office intervened.
My question to the Minister-


Mr. Shields:: Is he no longer a Member of Parliament? Is that what you are saying? You have got to be crazy.


An Hon. Member:: How many have you put forward?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The whole thing flies in the face of the Government. It makes a mockery of recalling Parliament this summer supposedly to study alleged abuse of the immigration system.
Why does the Minister not follow the recommendations of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Immigration who stated yesterday that he feels the whole matter should be referred to the committee for study and consideration? Why does he not follow the advice of his own Member?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I tabled the guidelines for conditions under which we are able to act. I guess I have already given the answer, and it is no use repeating what I said.
Clearly we have a case here where the individual has been in the country for over six years, employment authorizations had been renewed each time for six consecutive years, his longterm prospects are good in the country, and he has a son who is apparently married to a Canadian who could have sponsored him. Everything to do with this case was completely normal. It
September 11, 1987

took us four months of review, and that is how we had to act in a very appropriate fashion.
1 might say that business is as usual. The Members are still continuing to send in their representations, make phone calls, and send letters. I guess they feel that they are the only ones who can do so, ordinary Canadians cannot. But I reserve the right to be able to receive representations from any Canadian, journalist, lawyer, or elected people who have a concern to bring to us. On Global Television Peter Trueman stated that "more than once as a citizen 1 have written letters and even telephoned various federal-provincial Ministers to try to get what I believed would be fairer treatment for a deserving individual or organization. In my view there are too many glass houses around for this frenzy of stone-throwing to be safely continued".


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-BINDING DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of International Trade.
The U.S. Secretary of State, George Shultz, was reported by the CBC this morning-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh! Come on!


Cyril Keeper: What have you got against the CBC, boys?


Steven W. Langdon: -the national network of the country, to have rejected a binding dispute settlement mechanism as part of any free trade arrangement with the United States.
Because the Minister has not recently had the opportunity to put it clearly before the House, I wish to ask her if she could state that the Government will not sign any deal which does not have within it a complete and ironclad dispute settlement mechanism which is binding on the United States.


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the CBC quote that the Hon. Member referred to is, as is not unusual, incorrect in the analysis of Secretary of State Shultz's statement. I have that statement here. Secretary of State Shultz was welcoming the chance to discuss this, underlining how important it was, underlining the Prime Minister's and President Reagan's meeting at the summit, and saying that he hopes we will reach an agreement in a very short period of time. He describes the fact that the dispute settlement process is of concern to both countries, and is very important.
I can only repeat what the Prime Minister has said in the clearest way possible, that even the CBC should be able to transcribe the message. What I have said and what others have said is that there is little point in a trade treaty that does not
Oral Questions
include a way of settling disputes in an impartial and binding manner on both countries. Otherwise the trade treaty would have no real effect.
That is why it is central to our position. The Prime Minister has made that clear, we have made it clear in the House, and Ambassador Reisman has made it clear.


PUBLIC OPINION POLLS-REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM NEGOTIATIONS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that the Conservative Party is clearly now running against the CBC as well as the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, so far-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: We will stop short of violence.


Steven W. Langdon: -the polls have turned against free trade. Key labour and business groups reject it. The U.S. is playing hardball on it, and provinces like Ontario have set very harsh conditions on the issue.
Does the Minister not think that it is time to back off and adopt a whole new trade strategy?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, we are satisfied that our two-track trade policy is working. We are pushing ahead with the U.S. bilateral. We are pushing ahead with our multilateral efforts.
I would like to correct the Hon. Member who has been absent and may not be aware of this. We have just released a poll today which shows that the majority of Canadians continue to support the position on free trade. A poll commissioned by our Department in late August reports that 50 per cent of Canadians continue to think that the idea of free trade is a good one. That is essentially unchanged from June.
In terms of the harsh conditions which the Hon. Member supports, may I point out that the conditions about which Premier Peterson is talking are very similar and very supportive of the motion we passed in the House, wherein we said that the House supports negotiation of a bilateral trading arrangement with the United States as part of the Government's multilateral trade policy, while protecting our political sovereignty, our social programs, our agricultural marketing systems, our auto industry, and our unique cultural identity. 1 am pleased that Premier Peterson is supportive of our national objectives.


Steven W. Langdon: Especially after the election this may turn out to be true, but I hope not.

September 11, 1987
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT GENERAL ELECTION BE HELD ON ISSUE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister and the Government have no popular mandate for free trade, will the Government agree that any potential deal will be taken to the country in a general election before Canada is locked in by treaty?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, our mandate for free trade comes from the 211 Members that Canadians elected three years ago to run the country. That is where our mandate came from.
In terms of his suggestion of a general election, it is not within my powers as Trade Minister to accommodate the Hon. Member on this issue. I can only point out that the Prime Minister has promised that there will be a full debate on the issue in the House.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MADAME SIMONE VEIL, MR. RODRIGUE ESQUIVAL, HON. STEINGRIMUR HERMANNSON, RIGHT HON. DAVID STEELE, AND SENATOR GIOVANNI MALAGODI
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! I would like to call the Hon. Members' attention to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Rodrigue Esquival, Vice President and Leader of the Liberal Party of Panama, Madame Simone Veil, former President of the European Parliament,

-the Honourable Steingrimur Hermannson, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade and former Prime Minister of Iceland; the Right Honourable David Steele, Leader of the British Liberal Party; and Senator Giovanni Malagodi of Italy, President of Liberal International.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CHINESE TRADE DELEGATION
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in the gallery today of a trade delegation from China, led by the Vice-Mayor of Shanghai, Mr. Zhao-Ji Li.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the issue of free trade with the United States. With respect to a mandate, and just as a preamble to my question, I should like to ask the Hon. Minister how she can say that there is a mandate for free trade when it was not mentioned during the last election and her Leader campaigned against it when he sought the leadership of his Party.
In particular, is it not correct that Secretary of State Shultz said that any dispute settlement mechanism with his country will have to be consistent with United States trade laws?
How can there be a dispute settlement mechanism whose rulings are binding on both countries and still be consistent with American trade laws? Is he not clearly telling the Government that a supposed key condition for a free trade deal simply is not on? Is this not a signal that there is no deal unless the Government is going to cave in on this key demand?


Pat Carney: No,
Mr. Speaker.


CONTINUATION OF TALKS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if there have already been signals from key American Senators and from Secretary of State Shultz that this supposed key demand by the Government for a mechanism whose rulings will be binding on both Governments in trade disputes is unacceptable, why is the Minister continuing these talks when it is clear that these talks will lead to a result which will not be in the best interests of Canada and contrary to the needs of Canadians on jobs and sovereignty? Why is she continuing on this path without any real mandate from the Canadian people?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, when the Government ran for office successfully we ran on the mandate of creating jobs, and we have been very successful in that issue. We will shortly be creating the millionth job since the Government took office.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Do you have one for Mr. Grossman?


Pat Carney: May I point out that the free trade initiative is about jobs; that is what it is. It is about jobs in all regions of the country. The Economic Council of Canada has estimated that there will be 350,000 new jobs created by this initiative and that, in the absence of it, Canadians stand to lose jobs because of protectionism in the United States.
Our mandate comes from our promise to create jobs, and we are delivering on that mandate.
September 11, 1987


IMMIGRATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration and concerns the Grossmann issue-


John Napier Turner: Which one?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The immigration issue. Yesterday the Minister left a very crucial question unanswered. The Minister stated that this was a very simple, straightforward, and routine immigration case. As a matter of fact he stated that again today, as he has on a number of occasions.
If that is the case, would the Minister then explain to the House, and to the people of Canada who are very interested in the issue, why it was that every senior immigration officer in the country, from the Prime Minister's Office down, was involved in it? If this was simple, straightforward, and routine, why were all the senior people involved in this particular Grossmann issue?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, what is very simple and straightforward is that on May 4 I indicate my intention by Minister's permit to advance inland processing. I do that by asking the Deputy Minister to carry through with the process. I do not follow up what procedures may then take place. That is not for me to do. That is technical.
Perhaps the Hon. Member has not had a complete briefing on how the Immigration Department functions, but we know that everything goes well following my asking the Deputy Minister to do what is my intention.
It is a normal part of immigration processing. As I said, almost 16,000 times a year this is carried on. I only wish that the Hon. Member and others would not try to confuse the issue with other issues that may be on the table dealing with the arrival of illegal migrants in the country.


DISCHARGE OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are all familiar with individuals who are caught in very unpredictable circumstances and require various kinds of interventions. Is the Minister of State for Immigration saying today that in all cases, particularly those involving family reunification, that the Minister will give equal consideration-


Jack Wendele Shields: He does now.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -in allowing people to qualify for landed immigrant status from within Canada? In other words, will he treat all similar cases to the Grossmann case with the same enthusiasm and commitment?
Oral Questions


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, what I am proud of is the commitment that I have given to all Members of Parliament, how dedicated and with integrity we carry forward on petitions they make to my office.
I hang my head high-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: I hold my head high, excuse me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The Member will recognize that members of his Party and the other Party have praised the quality of the work they have received from our office.
I would like to state very, very quickly that what we have done is completely normal. It is what is expected. It is why Members continue to write and to call and why we reserve that right for all other Canadians, because the Immigration Act gives the Minister the opportunity to act on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. It is that that shows we are a caring and concerned nation.


HONDURAN GROUPS CLAIMING REFUGEE STATUS
Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. During the past few weeks there have been a number of groups of Hondurans who have arrived in Vancouver and, upon arriving, have claimed refugee status. It is now reported that another group from Central America has either been detained or turned back at Mexico City.
Can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to make sure that no bona fide claims are being stopped?


Cyril Keeper: Write Mila.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly very aware of the arrival of the increasing number of Hondurans, more particularly on the West Coast. We are monitoring the situation very carefully.
My information is that more than 1,000 have now come to make a refugee claim in Canada. It is part of the increasing abuse and I say this without trying to predispose whether these people may be refugees or not because I do not make that determination.
The Hon. Member has seen a Government that has now been bombarded with an increasing flow of refugee claimants. The advice that I have been getting from my Refugee Status Advisory Committee is that almost 90 per cent of them are non-bona fide claimants. It is for that reason that, once and for all, this House should get on with the business of passing Bill C-55 and putting in place a refugee determination process that makes sense, that balances fairness with compassion and will offer genuine protection to those who need it. This will keep the abusers out, will stop the traffic and profiteering, and will

September 11, 1987
Oral Questions
maintain our proud tradition of being of help to the real refugees of the world.


CITIZENSHIP
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State who is responsible for the granting of citizenship. This morning, in the presence of Liberal International, the National Women's Liberal Commission adopted the cause of the family of Iris Mason, a family which has arrived from Chile and has landed immigrant status. This family came from Chile where its members suffered horrible oppression and torture. They have been refused Canadian citizenship by the Government on national security grounds.
The family members appealed to the Security Intelligence Review Committee which recommended that they be given citizenship, but the Government has still refused. I gave the Secretary of State notice of my question which follows.
In light of the tragic circumstances which brought the Mason family to Canada will he accept the advice of the Government's own review committee and grant Canadian citizenship?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the Hon. Member for being in touch with my office just prior to Question Period. It allowed me the opportunity to call for the file. I will take the opportunity to read it over the weekend, and I invite the Hon. Member to meet with me on Monday morning.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE STATEMENT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I would simply like to ask whether the Minister would be willing to make a statement before the end of next week as to whether he is denying citizenship, to let Canadians know his reasons for doing so.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that what I do is review the file before any action is taken. I am sure the Hon. Member understands that. I have not seen the file. The Member's office called half an hour before Question Period. As I am sure he knows, I was not aware of the case. The responsible course of action is for me to read the file, which I will do over the weekend, and meet with the Hon. Member on Monday morning. At that time we can make a decision which is fair to all.


An Hon. Member:: Good answer.


IMMIGRATION
Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. Would the Minister consider requiring visas for visitors coming from Central America to Canada?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, over the last year we have instituted a number of control measures. Obviously some of them have been visas and they have been effective. Those issues are now being studied within the annals and powers of the Government. At the appropriate time, announcements may have to be made.
* V *


SENIOR CITIZENS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the new Minister of State for Senior Citizens, and I would like to congratulate him on his new job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Would the Minister take action on two very important matters that were raised repeatedly by the Hon. Stanley Knowles in the past and which have still not been dealt with?
Since most older women who are living alone experience excruciating poverty, will he act immediately to extend the benefits which now are available to widows to cover single women at age 60? Why should benefits be based on whether or not a woman has a man?


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Senior Citizens)):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to look into this representation and do whatever I can to do what is proper in this case.


OPTIONAL OLD AGE PENSIONS REQUEST
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a matter of policy that we want. This is not just a simple case. We want government policy and we want some change in legislation.
Since more and more older workers are becoming redundant through no fault of their own, will the Minister consider extending optional old age pensions for unemployed persons at age 60? This policy could also open jobs for younger workers.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to look into that representation also.
September 11, 1987

Oral Questions


INJUSTICES TO ELDERLY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister, the Minister of Veterans' Affairs and Minister of State (Senior Citizens). I want to commend him and express the hope that we can work closely together. But I must add right now that the Minister has a long way to go to remedy the inequities inflicted upon senior citizens by his Conservative Government.
In view of present political tendencies, can the Minister state whether he can undertake today to allow senior citizens the right to the spouse's allowance if they are either single, separated or divorced, something this Conservative Government has been denying them?
Secondly, can the Minister promise that he will ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to put an end to this discrimination against older workers who are not entitled to full UI benefits?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday I have asked seniors and seniors' organizations to get in touch with me and let me know the kinds of things they think should be done to make life better for seniors. I will take the representations I have heard this morning, including that of the Hon. Member who has just made a representation, and I can assure him his representation will be given very good consideration.


MINISTER OF STATE'S RESPONSIBILITIES
Jean-Claude Malépart: have a supplementary for the Minister, Mr. Speaker. The Minister says he will consult. Mrs. Denis came to Parliament Hill and told us what senior citizens want. People have now been protesting for three or four years, signing petitions, but what I would like to know is what the Minister's responsibilities are. Is the Minister in charge of the portfolio coming under the Department of National Health and Welfare that involves the New Horizons programs, from which the Government, the Minister of Finance slashed $5 million, or does the Minister simply holds the title of Minister of State (Senior Citizens) without any responsibilities whatsoever?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will be working very closely with the Department of National Health and Welfare and its very able Minister. We have already started having meetings together. It is with the co-operation of the Department of National Health and Welfare that the new Department of State for Seniors will be working. 1 am confident that between the two of us we will be able to produce some very good results.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government announced that it was backing the wider use of irradiated food. We would like to know why and who in Canada really wants this.
I direct my question to the Minister of State for Privatization. Would she confirm that she said the Government is considering privatizing Radiochemical Company, the arm of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited which is responsible for food irradiation? The Minister knows that AECL is bankrupt without government subsidies. Is this why the Government favours food irradiation? In other words, does it favour it to save the hide of AECL, putting Canadians at risk in the process?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is out of the House today on business and therefore is not able to respond appropriately, as I am sure he would, to the Hon. Member's question. The reason I am responding is that it struck me as being less a question of privatization and more a question of politics. The Hon. Member can practise that when the Minister returns to the House on Monday.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We are just trying to figure out why the Government is doing this.


PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Why does the Minister ignore the recommendations made by the Committee of the House of Commons? Why does the government jeorpadize the health of Canadians to save the hide of Atomic Energy of Canada? Because that is really the reason why the government has decided to favour food irradiation.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the issue with respect to the recommendations of the committee, the Minister of National Health and Welfare indeed accepted some recommendations and did not accept others, but that is the kind of information-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thirty-three he rejected.


David Edward Crombie: I can give the Hon. Member an answer if he would give me a chance. When the Minister returns, I am sure that in his normal good fashion he will explain that to the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member knows that the Minister is not

September 11, 1987
Oral Questions
here, and that kind of imputation of why the Minister is acting a certain way is clearly out of order, at least in my opinion.
* *
*


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-PUBLIC OPINION POLLS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister for International Trade a question specifically on the subject of opinion polls on free trade. May I say that I too hold my head high. I am still proud to be a Conservative from Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: However, last night's results in my province are being interpreted by some people as a poll of concern about free trade. Can the Minister comment further on the other poll released earlier this week which suggests that the Government has no mandate to enter a free trade deal with the United States? Has either poll changed the Government's mind?


Pat Carney: No,
Mr. Speaker. As I indicated, we will be releasing the results of our August poll today. It shows that the support for free trade at the end of August was at 50 per cent which is unchanged from June. I think it is interesting that the greatest support for free trade comes from Quebec where 64 per cent support the idea. I would like to emphasize that.

In Quebec, on free trade, 64 per cent, the highest level in Canada, support the idea.


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Recently Mr. Fortier, the Canadian negotiator with the French on the fish talks, was in Newfoundland and consulted with the Government of Newfoundland. The position of the Newfoundland Government is very clear. Northern cod is not to be begged, borrowed or stolen. Mr. Fortier would not comment one way or the other on that position.
What is the position of the Government of Canada in view of the importance of that resource to the fishermen of Newfoundland and to Atlantic Canada? Is northern cod on the table? Is it to be bargained away to the French?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada is that this is a matter that has to be negotiated between Canada and France. As a result of a meeting between Prime Minister Chirac and the Prime Minister of Canada, negotiations were opened again. They had been cut off by the French but they are opened again and will begin tomorrow in Paris.
As we have committed regularly in the House, any negotiations by Canada will involve continuous consultation with the interested parties including, the Province of Newfoundland. Those consultations will occur. Representatives of the Province of Newfoundland and other groups will be present as part of the Canadian delegation involved in the negotiations.
I do not propose to publish in the House of Commons the negotiating position Canada will take into the discussions with France tomorrow. To do that would be to jeopardize the Canadian and Newfoundland position. I would not want to do that.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the position of the Newfoundland Government is very clear. Not only that, but yesterday the Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland, the poorest province in Canada, put up $1 million to alleviate the crisis in the inshore fishery.
How can the Government of Canada allocate billions of dollars to protect Canadian sovereignty in the North and at the same time give away, propose to give away, or allow to give away the most important northern resource we have which is northern cod? How can he justify that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the premise, of course, is false. We are dealing with the problem. We have a negotiation under way now because the earlier arrangement put in place by a Government of which the Hon. Member was a part was insufficient. It did not provide adequate protection for Canada. It left a problem that must be resolved by negotiations. We are carrying out those negotiations now.
In the past when negotiations were carried out by Liberal Governments, the provinces and other interested parties were excluded. We have changed that practice. We have brought the Province of Newfoundland, other provinces and other interested groups into the consultation and the delegation for the negotiation. That is what is happening with regard to the negotiations in Paris this weekend and I make the commitment that we will be protecting the Canadian and the Newfoundland interests in those negotiations.
September 11, 1987


NATIONAL REVENUE
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue who may know that tobacco companies are spending about $5 million in advertising and promotion to oppose Bill C-51 and they do this, of course, thanks to the rules, with the taxpayers' aid because it is a business deduction. Would the Minister tell us why this unfairness exists? Individuals who would like to lobby in favour of a health Bill, be it Bill C-51 or Bill C-204, do not get any tax advantages whatsoever and charities risk losing their charitable status if they spend more than 10 per cent of their money on advocacy. Why is there this anomaly? Will he do something about that unfairness?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member realizes that these rules and regulations are put in place for a purpose. We are always willing to examine the appropriateness of them in light of current conditions. I will take the representations she has made very seriously and will see if there is something appropriate that can be done.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have a bit of clarification on that. I appreciate the Minister saying that the matter will be looked at, but would the Minister not agree in principle that this is an anomaly and that it is unfair? Would he not agree either that there ought to be some tax breaks for individuals and charities who ought to have an opportunity to put forward their health and educational concerns, or that the advantage corporations have is totally inappropriate and should be removed so that people will be on a fair and even footing?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that our Department is constantly seeking ways to interpret income tax and other regulations in an equitable way. It is part of the testimony that has come forward from many quarters which justifies the proposal for tax reform and for the kind of initiatives on which the Minister of Finance and our Department are working.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the Secretary of State probably knows, acid rain is probably the main environmental preoccupation of Canadians. Despite that fact, last week at the United Nations acid rain group when West Germany made a proposition to cut car and truck
Oral Questions
pollution by 30 per cent by 1995, Canada decided to turn down that proposal. Would the Secretary of State please explain why the Canadian Government has not supported this important proposition?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if we turned down that proposition we must have had a good reason for it, but I must confess to the Hon. Member that I do not know what it was. I will try to find out and I will let him know as quickly as I know.


AIR POLLUTION CAUSED BY AUTOMOBILES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: When we consider that the government of Canada played a major role in 1984 in establishing a club to reduce sulphur pollution by as much as 30 per cent, Mr. Speaker, we really wonder why the government of Canada does not support the same protocol intended to limit air pollution caused by automobiles. That is the same question, but it is very important.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is the same question, but formulated differently. The answer remains the same. I will try to find out. Once I have done so I can assure the Hon. Member that I will convey the information to him and all other interested parties. But it is quite clear that the Canadian commitment to pollution control is well established. I do not apologize for not being informed. It is my duty. However, I do apologize for not having the information today. I intend to obtain it as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He does not want to tell the people of Canada what the Canadian Government position is in these negotiations before he tells the Government of France. The negotiations begin tomorrow in France and the French Government will then know what the Canadian Government position is. Will he then make that position public so that the people of Newfoundland know their interests are being protected by the Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker-

September 11, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Waddell


John Barry Turner: Bring in the gunboats.


Charles Joseph Clark: -our position has been discussed with representatives of the industry, fishermen, and the Government of Newfoundland, as well as the other Atlantic provinces concerned. The process we have been following for the last several months has been to involve them closely in the discussions. Representatives of all or most of those groups are part of the delegation now in Paris. We want to be sure we have a position which can command as much respect and support as possible in Canada.
While on my feet and in response to an earlier question which elicited NDP interest in sending gunboats, may I ask whether the NDP position on violence-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: - also extends to violence in Central America, the Middle East, and on picket lines in Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSULTATION WITH INTERESTED PARTIES
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Minister told us that these groups have discussed our position. How can he assure us that not only those groups are being consulted but that they are aware Canada is taking a very strong position in view of the fact that the insult extended to the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland occurred at the same time the Government of Canada was trying to cosy up to Prime Minister Chirac for la Francophoniel


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for a new Member the Hon. Member has adopted the practice of disinformation very quickly. I regret to have to congratulate him on his speed in placing false information and false implications on the floor of the House of Commons. The reason-


Cyril Keeper: You just did it yourself.


Charles Joseph Clark: The quotation from yesterday was: "Sometimes a resort to violence is absolutely essential-"


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Right Hon. Minister could complete the answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am sorry, I do not want this discussion to become violent.
The answer is that there was discussion involving the negotiator and representatives of the fishermen, the industry and the provinces earlier this week prior to departure of the delegation for Paris. Those groups are represented directly on the Canadian delegation. They are in Paris and in constant contact with the negotiator. I do not think as a practical
matter, when we want to conduct an effective negotiation and we know we cannot publish the details in advance of entering the negotiating room, there is much more that we can do.
We are doing this to try to ensure that if we secure an agreement on this difficult issue, it will be an agreement which results from the widest possible consultation in Canada.


PRIVILEGE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question I put to a different Minister, the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) said I was out of order in putting that question when the Minister was away.


Charles Joseph Clark: In his opinion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My question dealt with privatization and there is a Minister responsible for privatization and that is the Minister to whom I put the question. I asked her if she would confirm a statement that she allegedly made and I do not understand why she did not answer.
However, that is not my question of privilege. My question of privilege is that the Minister said I was out of order, and I would ask him to stand tall in this House and withdraw that allegation.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to assume either the role or mantle of the Chair in declaring that the Hon. Member was out of order. That is not my job. I was simply offering an opinion with which obviously the Chair did not agree. Consequently, I do not think there is any reason for me to withdraw it. I do not declare whether or not the Member is out of order, that is the business of the Hon. Member or the Chair.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: But you did.


David Edward Crombie: Well, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for believing I have the capacity to call him out of order. If he reads the rule book he will find that that is for him and the Chair to determine.


Cyril Keeper: You are short on grace.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Too.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is-


An Hon. Member:: Out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member felt the Hon. Minister was arrogating the responsibilities of the Chair. The Hon. Minister said he did not intend to do that. Perhaps having heard the
September 11, 1987

Minister and the Hon. Member the position of the Chair is that the Minister meant it was not appropriate for the Hon. Member to ask the question when some Minister was not here. That is not a matter of being out of order and that of course, as the Minister said, was only his opinion. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) pointed out that there were other Ministers here, at least one other, that might have dealt with the matter. That Minister might have but did not.
In any event, I think I have to rule that while there is a complaint here, it seems to be based on some sort of misunderstanding. It is not a question of privilege but it does signal the necessity for all Hon. Members to be clear in the use of language, otherwise there is some confusion. It goes even beyond that on occasion and then the Chair has to take up the time of all Hon. Members to clarify the situation. 1 thank the Hon. Member for his intervention and the Hon. Minister for his response.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2) and following agreement with the Council of Ministers of Education for Canada, I wish to table additional information submitted by the Province of Manitoba augmenting the report on postsecondary school education in Canada tabled in the House on February 6, 1987. I ask the House for unanimous consent to refer this document to the Standing Committee of Secretary of State.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 14 petitions.
Canagrex


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise that Bill C-2, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of establishing Canagrex was not to interfere with private sector operations in this industry, it was not to hurt it but to help it. I would like to put on the record some of the comments of the President and Chief Executive Officer of Canagrex, Mr. A. E. Story, when he appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture on March 11, 1985. He said in part as follows:
Immediately upon opening the offices of Canagrex on January 3rd, 1984, we set about preparing a corporate plan which was later approved by our board of directors and signed by the Minister of Agriculture. It was my firm intention to carry out the corporate plan and operate the corporation based upon private sector principles. I hired the most results-oriented people I could find.
He said further:
The suggestions expressed by many of the agricultural associations and industry groups such as the Canadian Exporters Association were very helpful.
In other words, he consulted with them. He said further:
Concern was often expressed that we would exercise the powers in the Canagrex Act to undertake direct buying and selling. We were determined that we would leave the buying and selling to the private sector. We did not interfere in the marketplace.
Mr. Story went on to explain what they were doing and said:
We prepared a survey of Canadian commodities available for export. This source list of Canadian commodities is probably the most comprehensive and up-to-date available anywhere today.
Surely we have the right to ask why other departments did not prepare such a list. Why did the Department of Agriculture not do it? Why destroy the organization which prepared this very important list? He continued:
We developed a market survey program. This entailed in-depth research on specific market areas which we considered as potentially promising and most interested in buying Canadian products.

September 11, 1987
Canagrex
He went on to illustrate what he meant. He said:
For example, we had a pork producer accompany our mission to Singapore, we had a potato producer travel with us to Cuba. We also had tobacco producers travel with our group to Egypt, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, where we initiated the negotiation process to assist in selling to these markets.
The valuable market information which we gathered was fed back to the Canadian industry.
Why would the Government put a stop to that kind of valuable assistance?
He continued:
We undertook a program to stimulate export sales abroad. For example, Canagrex defrayed some of the cost involved in transporting high quality breeding swine to Italy on the understanding that out of any subsequent sales, Canagrex would recover their expenses. As it turned out, the Canadian swine won several medals at the Milano exhibition. As a result of these efforts, foreign buyers visited Canada to investigate further purchases of Canadian swine.
Farmers in my province of Manitoba produce a substantial number of pigs and would like to expand their production. However, there is no use expanding production if they cannot make sales. If Canagrex could help sell more swine in Italy, why would the Conservative Government destroy it? Mr. Story said further:
The Buyers Credit Guarantee Program was an important area of Canagrex operations. We sought to have the risks shared among the Canadian exporters, the banks or the insurance companies and the foreign buyer. A Canagrex guarantee was provided when it was deemed absolutely necessary.
That is what all the other governments are doing. They help their producers by providing loans at low interest rates and providing subsidies. They do everything they can to help their producers. Surely to God, given the tremendous difficulties which Canadian producers of agricultural products are facing, we should be doing everything we can. Instead, blinded by the Government's mystic belief in the free market, its opposition to government involvement, and its belief that the best government is the government which does the least, the Government has taken the completely irresponsible and wrong decision to destroy Canagrex.
We intend to vote against this Bill for all the reasons which I and other members of the New Democratic Party have listed. We believe that the establishment of Canagrex was a good idea. It made a good start and should have been helped to expand its activities rather than being destroyed as it will be when this Bill is passed.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, in its annual report Canagrex indicated that it was having difficulty getting backing from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in order to provide financing for the exporting of a number of different agricultural products. It had asked the Ministry of Finance for a global figure beyond which it could not provide financing by way of export guarantees. The Ministry of Finance kept dragging its feet and refusing that financing until finally the Minister of Finance, in his first financial statement to the House, indicated that the Government had made a decision to do away with Canagrex.
Does the Hon. Member believe that the idea of the Minister of Finance was to make the performance of Canagrex's functions as difficult as possible by inaction on approving the export financing arrangements which the Act provided for Canagrex?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I can, of course, only speculate on the thinking of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). However, he did to Canagrex what he had done in so many other cases. The Minister of Finance is so fixed with the need to reduce the deficit that he would not give Canagrex the go-ahead by giving it the money it needed. He did the same thing in the field of scientific research which, of course, includes agricultural research. I have never heard such devastating criticism of a Minister of Finance as I did in the documents released recently by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, who go into great detail about how the cut-backs in funding have hurt scientific research. The refusal of the Minister of Finance to supply the funds for Canagrex is just part and parcel of his whole approach that he must cut the deficit, regardless of the very serious and adverse effects it has on Canagrex and ail other government organizations which need adequate financing.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5) the recorded division stands deferred until six o'clock Monday, September 14, 1987.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you give us a ruling as to the acceptability of Members shouting their assent to a Bill when they are not in their seats?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will get back to the Hon. Member's point of order quickly.

September 11, 1987


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. We appreciate the co-operation of the Opposition Parties in dealing with Bill C-2. I think you will find that there would be agreement to move to Private Members' Business with the Hon. Member for Montreal- Saint Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and we certainly agree.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order made earlier today the House will now proceed with the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVITALIZATION SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Jean-Claude Malépart: That a special committee of this House be established to consider the problems affecting the shipbuilding industry, with a view to initiating a revitalization of that industry in Quebec.
He said: First, Mr. Speaker, I want to explain why this committee should be established. Let it be known from the outset that I would be prepared to accept an amendment motion if the Government wanted to extend the committee's terms of reference to the whole country. I am convinced that my colleague from Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin) would support this amendment because I think that Quebec's shipbuilding industry problems have a similar impact in the Maritime Provinces, in Ontario, and in Western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out why.. . Hon. Members will recall that before the 1984 election the previous Liberal administration used to spread contracts around to make sure that none of Canada's shipyards would remain idle.
We have three major shipyards in Quebec: Lauzon near Quebec City, Sorel, and Vickers in Montreal. Back in 1984, before the election brought the Conservative Government to power, these three shipyards had landed contracts-frigates for the Montreal and Sorel shipyards, and a contract for the Caribou ferry which had been awarded to Lauzon's shipyards. However, there had been a transaction in the meantime. The owners of the Lauzon shipyard purchased the Montreal shipyard, and without the agreement of the Government and without advising anyone, transferred all the Montreal contracts to the Lauzon shipyard in Quebec City, which could have meant the closing of the Vickers shipyard in Montreal,
Shipbuilding
which shipyard had historically provided jobs and enjoyed a certain influence.
We all recall the lethargic attitude of the Conservative Government in the case of the Gulf refinery and of Bombardier. Then, we had the announcement of the closing of this shipyard and of several businesses and the loss of 5,000 jobs. With the provincial and federal representatives of East Montreal, I created a survival committee to force the Conservative Government to take action on these issues, stop the closing of these industries and save 5,000 jobs.
Unfortunately, the Government approved what meant virtually a death warrant for the Gulf refinery in East Montreal by allowing a foreign company to purchase the refinery with the purpose of closing it. Thank God, the provincial Government, led by Mr. Robert Bourassa and Mr. Ciaccia, took over and prevented the Gulf refinery in East Montreal from closing completely! As regards the lethargy of the Conservative Government on the matter of the shipyards, I have to say quite honestly that there were certainly rather complex problems in this industry.
Unfortunately, the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, the Hon. Member for Langelier (Mr. Cote), who is himself from Quebec, had plotted to ensure that the president of Versatile Vickers would be in charge of coordinating the rationalization of shipyards in Quebec. The Government told him, and this is what I found unacceptable, that if he wanted the contract for the Caribou, he had to bring together the three Quebec shipyards which I mentioned earlier, that is the two belonging to him, and one, the Sorel Shipyard, owned by the Quebec Government. Only on this condition would the Government grant him the contract for the Caribou ferry. Mr. Saunders then launched a private crusade and went to see the only other competitor, the Quebec Government, and said: "Listen, you should get into another line of work. I have a mandate from the federal Government and you should go into another field. I shall take care of the major work at the Lauzon Shipyard in Quebec City, do the little jobs in Montreal and make a lot of money, and you can do something else.
Unfortunately, I had been told about that and I must commend the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Piamondon) who also worked with the local union-and even the people, the Conservative Member had wind of the matter and he exposed that attitude. Unfortunately, the former Minister of State for Regional Industrial Expansion, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jean (Mr. Bissonnette) at that time had called me a liar, saying that it was false. But I was sure of my facts, and indeed, through the access to Information Act, I obtained the documents where it was written in black and white that the Government was committed, everything was signed, and we know what happened to the Hon. Member for Saint-Jean! When it is his word against mine-I do not think it takes very long to know who is telling the truth.

September 11, 1987
Shipbuilding
But the impact of all this is that despite this fiddling about by those politicians, or their lack of experience, the result is that today people are still talking to each other in our Quebec shipyards. Even though there are announcements of huge contracts in Quebec City, the jobs just are not there-400 employees out of 2,000 have just been recalled. In Montreal the shipyards are empty, again there are 35 employees left out of 1,500, and I know there is a problem, yes, there is a problem in the shipyard industry. Instead of having a strategy, and it is at that point that I tabled the motion, instead of this double dealing behind the workers' back, behind the union's back, when a Minister of the Crown strikes a deal with a company president and says he will give him a contract if he shuts down that one-that does not work, it will not work, the results are there. Those three scheming Ministers, where are they now? Two of them have lost their portfolios, and one has just been fired. What did that back-alley scheming produce? Nothing at all, and thank God, it shed light on the matter! This is why the proposal is that the Elouse ask the Government to strike a committee, made up of representatives from the federal Government, the Opposition in the House of Commons, the provincial Government, the Opposition in the National Assembly, the municipalities in those areas. That is important, whether it is Sorel, Quebec City, or Montreal, because those people are the area's economic future. They should be on this committee. As well as representatives from the industry, from management of course, but also from the workers.
I am confident that once such a group is set up and everyone honestly analyzes the conditions in the shipyard industry, we will discover what the problems are in Quebec, in the Atlantic region, in Ontario and in Western Canada, and what sort of work is to be done, since the contracts come under federal jurisdiction. The Mayor of Quebec City is not the one who builds boats. He may be hoodwinked by the federal Government, but he does not build boats, only the federal Government does so for the Department of National Defence or the Department of Transport, ferries and other such things.
Then the Government is aware of the new boats that are needed, of repairs which have to be done and of the orders which have to be placed. If that had been better structure than what we see now, there would not have been any crisis. Then those people would know what the capacities and the number of workers are in those shipyards. Are there too many shipyards and not enough contracts? If so, what is to be done? However, the first decision made by this Conservative Government, by the former Minister, the Member for Saint-Jean, as well as another Minister who has been sacked, the Hon. Member for Langelier (Mr. Cote) was that we had too many shipyards. They decided to close down some of them. They even schemed about which one was to be closed down and the finger was pointed at Sorel. The same thing was done in the Maritimes and in Ontario and one shipyard was expected to be closed down in the West, but the file was closed and all those changes were set aside.
Presently the shipyards in Quebec are working, but once again it is thanks to the Bourassa government, a good liberal government, thanks to Ministers like Marc-Yvan Cote, thanks to Ministers who said: Wait a minute, we cannot allow those shipyards to close down. In the Quebec City area, it was thanks to Marc-Yvan Cote that the Lauzon shipyard was kept open. It was not thanks to any Conservative Member, they did not even know where they were going. So at the provincial level they got their act together and told the federal government: Wait a minute, those shipyards have to be kept going. They created a committee and they told the federal government: We will pick up the pieces, but we do want the money. You have tampered enough with this whole matter, we want the money to have the work done.
But then again that was the provincial government which is continuously dependent on the contracts from the federal government. To top it off, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), after his predecessor had said there was too many shipyards, is now developing and modernizing the shipyards in his riding, in his own area. Pretty soon, this shipyard will be able to compete with the shipyards in Quebec for the maintenance of the Caribou I and Caribou II.
And governments come and go, depending on patronage, depending on the Minister, depending on the area. For all these reasons, at this moment we cannot trust anybody in this Cabinet. And I believe this is reflected in the public opinion polls.
There is nobody left with some intellectual credibility and honesty, nobody that can be trusted by the population.
In order to solve the problems shipyards are facing, there is an absolute need to set up a committee and I wish it would be a national committee. However, in this kind of matter, I believe there are regional implications, the needs are different in Quebec, in Western Canada and in the Maritimes.
But I believe it is urgent to act because in two or three years from now the same problems will arise if we do not go to the bottom of the matter.
Let us remember that during the last electoral campaign, Conservative candidates had promised to bring back full indexation of old age security pensions. You have misled the people and you promised the same thing in the shipbuilding industry.
And always the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), with one hand over his heart and the other on the Gospel: I promise you that we are going to increase the subsidies to help upgrade the shipbuilding industry. What has he done? He has done the contrary.
Well, if today the Prime Minister tells Canadiens who are listening to us: I am going to give you this. You can tell yourself right away: He has made a mistake, for he wants to take it away from us. If he says that he is going to take it away from you, it is because he is going to give it to you. Such has been the case in every matter.
September 11, 1987

I beg Hon. Members to understand that these jobs-


Clément M. Côté: Foul mouth!


Jean-Claude Malépart: The Hon. Member for Lac-St-Jean (Mr. Cote) is shouting: They don't care! He knows that he is beaten, that he will lose, so that he does not care and thinks only of filling his own pockets until the next election.
Mr. Speaker, but the workers at the Lauzon shipyard near Quebec City do care. Those at the Vickers shipyard in Montreal do care too. Because they are former employees, they are there.
It is the same under the Work Adjustment Training Program. The Sorel people ... It was a designated area which was eligible to the pre-retirement program. Again, this Conservative government, the Minister of Labour abolished this program last year and announced another one. But the new one was never implemented.
There are people in this shipyard who, after being on unemployment insurance for one year under the Work Adjustment Training Program, became eligible to unemployment insurance benefits up to age 65 when they could not find new jobs. This was the rule of the game.
Unfortunately, the Conservative government has eliminated this program. This has contributed again to a greater number of unemployed in the area.
I dare hope that Conservative Members will agree at least- Perhaps the Hon. Member representing the Quebec area will be allowed to speak out, for I am sure he must have good ideas.
I suggest, however, that it is important to set up a committee. I am well aware of the procedure and I know that if Conservative Members object, they will talk for an hour to kill the Bill on the Order Paper. They will say: Yes, we have a committee of Conservative Members. But what about it? What good has it done so far?
The Conservative Committee they had in Ontario was soundly defeated. The same thing will happen in New Brunswick: Get out, Tories! Wake up if you want to save your skin! Do not try to hide behind your Ministers, or even your Prime Minister, for he is finished, dead and buried!
But join others within a committee. I am not asking you to join only Liberals, but also municipal, union and workers representatives. They will tell you what went wrong, and describe in no uncertain terms that people no longer trust either you or the Prime Minister. Wake up: We should not give you a break, but we are willing to do so for the sake of workers; we are willing to go beyond party consideration and ask that such a committee be established and made up of representatives from the federal and provincial governments, of the opposition parties whatever they may be, as well as specialists. But it is not possible to continue like this. I see that the Quebec people are getting ready to stand up. They will beat their breasts and say: We have so many contracts. So
Shipbuilding
many contracts! The guys are not working and are on welfare. What is the Hon. Member doing? It is not enough to say that there are so many contracts and that so many millions of dollars will be spent. There is no work. There are 1600 workers in the Quebec region who were employed by the shipyards and who are now out of work. There are some who are on welfare. And it is not because they have elected to be so. They are on welfare because this Conservative Government has thrown them there.
The situation is the same in Sorel. I wish the Hon. Member for that riding were here, because he would not be afraid to contradict his colleagues. For he was the one who made public the first letter which revealed his colleagues' plot to close the Sorel shipyard. If he were here, I am sure he would support my proposal, because he would know he could participate, because he himself no longer trusts the Cabinet. He knows he was fooled once. I remember when the workers came here, the Hon. Member for St-Jean had promised them: Yes, you are going to see . .. He had even supported and signed a deal to close it. That is why you are no longer popular.
Indeed, this committee could be made up of municipal and provincial representatives who, together, could find ways to ensure that the Quebec shipbuilding industry continues to exist. Our qualified labour force is an asset. The men and women who make up the labour force in this industry can compare with anybody in the world in terms of competence, quality, effectiveness and productivity. I know the Conservative Members who associate with the bosses will tell us: "They are not productive, because of three or four strikes and such and such a thing". However, that is all they care about, money. But in fact, it is not true. Just look at the figures.
Our Quebec shipyards are the most productive in all of Canada. And the quality of the job they do is superior to that of many others. We cannot give up that industry which generation after generation has been part of Quebec's heritage.
I think that one of the best ways, unless better alternatives are suggested, and I would be ready to approve them, would be to call together all parties concerned at the federal, provincial and municipal levels, labour and corporate representatives, as well as subcontractors involved as well as representatives of businessmen's groups in those areas with a specific aim, that is to keep the three Quebec shipyards in operation-and not try to close one down-but to review the orientation of those three shipyards and maintain the employment. And I am sure that with such qualified people gathered around the table, ways will be found to resolve the three above-mentioned issues that is to enable our three Quebec shipyards to maintain their orientation, to keep up employment in those shipyards at their present levels and to continue to uphold the prestige and reputation of Quebec shipyards throughout the world.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the issue which has been raised by the Hon. Member is an important

September 11, 1987
Shipbuilding
one and is one to which this government has recently devoted much attention. There is little doubt that this is an important industry to Canada and the severe decline in the demand for its products is not a development that can be ignored, and it will not be ignored by this government.
While the value of vessel construction work in Canadian shipbuilding and ship repairing yards averaged $191 million between 1976 and 1985 in 1971 dollars this industry suffered a 47 per cent decline from 1982 to 1984. From 1984 to 1985 the commercial order book fell by 63 per cent to a post-war low. There now remain 18 major yards in Canada following the closure or the placing in receivership of several yards in Canada: Breton Industrial Marine in Nova Scotia, the Collingwood Shipyard in Ontario, and the Bel-Aire Shipyard and two Rivtow owned yards of British Columbia. This is a direct reflection of the difficulties facing the industry.
Another indication of the problems facing this industry has been the decline in overall yard employment. While the average employment level for 1976 to 1985 stood at 15,000, by 1985 the average employment figure had declined to only 8,000. As of the end of may 1987 it totalled somewhat less than 7,000. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that demand is not expected to recover to the levels reached in the 1970's in the foreseeable future.
The current problems facing Canadian yards also have been felt throughout the world. The levels of orders and completions throughout the world have declined so drastically since the peak levels of the 1970's that today it is estimated there exists a 40 per cent overcapacity in shipbuilding. Specifically, while world tonnage of ships completed in 1975 was 34.2 million gross tonnes, in 1986 the tonnage completed represented about 49 per cent of that figure.
In the past year, this decline has been even more severe. For example, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) orders in Japan declined 14 per cent in the first half of 1986 in comparison to the same period in 1985. Orders declined 69 per cent in European yards over the same period. In Korea, a 77 per cent drop in the value of new shipbuilding orders was recorded over this period.
It should be noted that part of the decline in capacity utilization in some of the countries with older shipbuilding industries is due to the entrance of new aggressive competitors. Korea, China and Taiwan have all made significant additions to their shipbuilding capacities in recent years which has eroded the domination of the international market by the Western European nations and Japan.
Forecasts indicate that the world overcapacity situation will continue into the mid 1990's. As a result of the past declines in orders and the continuing difficult climate forecast for the industry, a number of countries have taken a variety of measures to address the problem.
In Japan, in the past decade there has been a 45 per cent reduction in the direct labour force involved in shipbuilding activities. Recently, a government panel called for a 20 per cent reduction in shipbuilding capacity by the end of 1987. The panel also called for mergers among builders to consolidate and rationalize the business structure of the industry and to decrease excessive competition. Two leading shipyards, Mitsui and Nippon Kokan are apparently discussing the possibility of joint capacity reductions along these lines. Kawasaki, Hitachi, and Sumitomo are talking of mergers.
In West Germany the total shipbuilding industry workforce declined from 73,000 persons in 1975 to 43,000 in 1985. It is anticipated that employment in the shipbuilding sector will fall further by roughly a quarter, or approximately 10,000 jobs. This employment is concentrated in the northern coastal areas and the German government has indicated it does not inted to attempt to maintain all of the shipbuilding capacity in these states. Instead, it looks to indutry to propose how it plans to restructure itself. To this effect the German government has announced it will provide substantial infrastructure and regional structural aid to the four northern coastal states.
In Sweden, one of the world's leading shipbuilding nations only 10 years ago, Kockums, the only remaining large new building yard, ceased new merchant vessel construction at the end of 1986.
Returning to the Canadian situation, I note the Hon. Member's request that a special committee of the house be established to consider the problems affecting the shipbuilding industry with a view to initiating a revitalization of the industry in Quebec. Such a special committee is not required since the Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion is empowered, with its mandate, to study this situation. Moreover, the government is doing all that is possible to initiate a revitalization in this sector without interfering unduly in what is essentially a private sector matter. However, I welcome this opportunity to discuss the approach which the government is taking to assist the industry workers in meeting the challenge of the new environment.
There are three elements to the government strategy to deal with the situation. First, the government will continue to offer protection for the domestic market. The 25 per cent duty which applies to most vessels offers protection to Canadian shipbuilders.
Second, the government will continue to support the shipbuilding industry through its own purchases. We are fully cognizant of the important role which the government's marine requirements have had and will continue to have for this industry.
Over the past five years federal government procurements accounted for approximately 20-25 per cent of the employment in Canadian yards. The relative importance of federal procurement has been increasing steadily as commercial orders declined. As of May 26, 1987, all new building work being carried out or on order were government-related contracts.
September 11, 1987

Over the next 5 years an estimated $1.6 billion in defence procurements are expected to come on stream, accounting for approximately 38 per cent of work in Canadian shipyards. A further $700 to $1,200 million in non defence government procurements are also possible which could comprise another 25-33 per cent of total revenues in Canadian yards during the same period.
Mr. Speaker, we are working with the industry to ensure that our marine requirements are met in a fashion which acknowledges the importance of this demand to the ongoing strength of the industries while at the same time ensuring that these procurements will be provided in a manner which is cost effective to the Government.
Third, the Government has indicated that it is prepared to assist industry with a full array of its programming in adjusting itself to these new circumstances. To respond to the changed market environment and strengthen their competitive position for the future, yards will have to reduce capacity. In some cases this may require closures. In other cases, mergers, specialization, diversification or other approaches may be more appropriate. However, initiatives for responding to the new situation must come from industry.
In particular, the Government is ready to assist in industry-led restructuring plans that put Canadian yards in a better position to compete and that minimize any adverse consequences for affected workers and communities.
The first concrete instance of the application of this policy involved a restructuring proposal from the Ontario shipbuilding industry. The owners of the Collingwood shipyard came to the conclusion that they could not maintain operations in that yard. Together with owners of the other major shipyard in Ontario, they developed a plan to restructure their activities in view of the lack of demand for their products. In essence this provided that Collingwood would cease its operation and that the port Weller and port Arthur shipyards would be merged and modernized in order to be more competitive in the international market.
The Federal Government through its programs was able to assist the companies in the implementation of their plan. This was comprised of assistance under the shipbuilding industry assistance program (SIAP) for the company to move some of the more technologically advanced equipment operated in Collingwood to other facilities in Ontario. It is expected that this will result in a more competitive Ontario industry capable of servicing the needs of Great Lakes operators and better able to compete for major Crown procurements.
An area of concern to the Federal Government as well as the companies was the impact that this restructuring plan would have on the affected workers and communities. In order to minimize any possible negative effects, my colleague the Honourable Minister for Employment and Immigration selected Collingwood under the community futures program of the Canadian jobs strategy.
Shipbuilding
As you may know, the community futures program builds on the existing strengths of communities supporting the private sector and local community initiatives through a wide variety of programs. It involves a flexible cooperative effects approach and emphasizes entrepreneurial strengths.
The Government of Ontario also helped to implement the plans of the companies, by offering assistance to make the remaining yards more competitive.
The Government has also assisted owners of Quebec shipyards in reaching an agreement to consolidate ownership under Marine Industries Limited (MIL). The Government played a key role in bringing the parties together and assisted by facilitating the smooth transfer of its own contracts.
Marine Industries Limited, with its proven successful experience in the management of diversified operations, with the technological and manufacturing strengths possessed by the versatile operations and with the strong order book provided by Federal Government requirements I am sure will create a revitalized Quebec shipbuilding industry.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to re-iterate that we recognize that the shipbuilding industry is facing difficult times. The Federal Government stands ready to respond to proposals to assist the community, worker and industry to adjust to changing industry conditions. The initiatives, however must come from the private sector. The recent developments in Ontario and Quebec are clear indications of the Government's commitments in this regard.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the motion of the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). I cannot support it fully although I agree with the Hon. Member that the shipbuilding industry is in a crisis situation.
The motion would limit the consideration of the problems affecting the shipbuilding industry and the revitalization of that industry to the Province of Quebec. While I am sure, as the Hon. Member has stated, that the shipbuilding industry in Quebec has serious problems which need to be addressed by the Government of Canada, so too does the shipbuilding industry in the rest of the country, particularly in the Atlantic provinces where there is a serious shipbuilding crisis and also on the West Coast of Canada where shipyards are closing, the workforce is growing older, and great skills associated with the shipbuilding trade are being lost.
Shipbuilding is an industry which has roots in the history of the country, from the earliest days in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland as a part of our great maritime industry. We are a country which borders on three oceans. We have skills associated with the industry. In the past we have had a great shipbuilding industry, but it is in a crisis. The

September 11, 1987
Shipbuilding
Government of Canada should do more than give lip service to its development.
While the previous speaker indicated that the Government does its procurement through Canadian shipyards, surely it is not enough, nor is it enough to relegate it to other existing programs.
In August, 1984, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a promise to the people of Canada that he would pay attention to the shipbuilding industry. In fact, at that time he said that a top priority of the PC Government would be to create a more viable and prosperous shipbuilding industry. This indicates to me that the Government of Canada made a commitment to the people of Canada back in 1984 to put into place a national shipbuilding policy.
What do we have three years later? We have an industry in crisis. Shipyards are closing in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland, for example, the one at Marystown and the dockyard at St. John's, Newfoundland. They are in very serious trouble, lurching in some cases from one contract to the next and always operating very precariously without any longterm plan to guarantee jobs for skilled workers in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and British Columbia.
We need a comprehensive policy which clearly sets out what assistance the Government will provide to the shipbuilding industry. As well we need a commitment not just to procure the shipping needs of the Government from Canadian shipyards, but to ensure the survival of the yards and the job skills for Canadians.
We have a situation, as previous speakers have indicated, where the number of people employed in the Canadian shipbuilding industry has been reduced by approximately a third over the last 10 years. We now have 7,000 or fewer people employed in that industry, whereas some 10 years of 15 years ago there were in excess of 20,000 employees. I am using the figures supplied by the General Manager of the Pictou Industries who said in a recent article that in the last 10 years 250 foreign-built vessels were registered in Canada, that is 25 a year for the last 10 years, and if those vessels had been built in Canada all Canadian shipbuilding yards would have been working to capacity. It does not seem like a great number of ships in one year, 25 for all of Canada, but if those ships had have been built in Canada instead of being registered in Canada and built in foreign countries, it would have revitalized the Canadian shipbuilding industry. We have not had the kind of commitment from this Government that would see that brought about.
The motion asks for a special committee of the House to consider the shipbuilding industry in the Province of Quebec. But there ought to be a special committee of the House not just looking at the industry in Quebec but having regard to the problems of the industry, nationally, and working toward the development promised by the Government in 1984 when it was
seeking a mandate from Canadians. In other words, the entire shipbuilding industry across the country should be looked at. With the expert advice and assistance of studies that can be undertaken by such a committee a shipbuilding policy could be put together for Canada that would guarantee its survival.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate today but first, if I may, I should like to refresh the memory of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) about the sequence of some of the events.
As I recall, Mr. Speaker, I was with my colleague from Levis (Mr. Fontaine) the Member and Minister responsible for the Quebec region, (Mr. Cote) and all my colleagues from the greater Quebec City area when we met with the management and labour unions of Lauzon's shipyards. Mr. Speaker, I must say that, unlike my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie, we were not thrown out of the yards, quite the contrary, we were warmly greated as people who were intent on helping them. Indeed 1 remember that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie had been singled out for having been a member of the Liberal Government-it had been in office for 20 years-which had let the situation deteriorate in Canada's shipyards. They could not have cared less.
As it happens, Mr. Speaker, I am the son of a Lauzon shipyard worker. My father worked there for years, from the onset of the war and for years after that, and I have always felt a certain awareness of shipyard problems. Again recently my father was telling me that the only governments which really tried to help and solve the shipyard problems have been Conservative governments.
He reminded me that the only Government which had been willing to give contracts to the Canadian shipyards after the war was the one led by Mr. John Diefenbaker. We have to remember when the last contracts for frigates and ships were awarded by the Department National Defence. If I am not mistaken, our youngest ship was built in 1963, and the contract was awarded under the Government of Mr. John Diefenbaker. Afterwards, when the Liberals were in power, they never tried to develop a long term shipbuilding policy. As usual, they allowed the situation to deteriorate and did not try to support the modernization efforts of the shipyards or take into account the fact that most Canadian shipyards had been created because of the war effort.
These are facts which the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie did not mention. He tried instead to play at petty politics. Once again, he has suggested that we establish a committee. This is the latest thing among the Liberals. They create a committee when they do not want to solve a problem.
Mr. Speaker, as for creating a committee to consult, especially with members of the Opposition, I can tell you that we have better things to do! The members of the Conservative
September 11, 1987

caucus of the Quebec region, with the full support of their regional minister, have not been content to consult. We worked together and as a team to find long term solutions for the Quebec shipyards, not only for the one in Lauzon, but also for the other two major shipyards in Quebec.
It might be appropriate to note, Mr. Speaker, that between 1976 and 1985, the yearly production of the shipyards affilitated with the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association averaged $191 million in constant 1971 dollars. However, this figure decreased by 47 per cent between 1982 and 1984, and the orders received by the industry went down by 63 per cent between 1984 and 1985 to reach their lowest level since the end of the Second World War.
Such is the present situation, Mr. Speaker.
Since the recent closing of five shipyards, there are now only 18 major shipyards in operation in Canada. Those which have closed recently are the Breton Industrial Marine Shipyard in Nova Scotia, the Collingwood Shipyard in Ontario, the Bel-Aire Shipyard and two Rivtow shipyards in British Columbia.
These closings, combined with the job losses incurred in all shipyards, directly reflect the problems the whole industry is facing. The average number of jobs in the industry went down from 15,000 jobs to 8,000 during the last ten years and by the end of May, 1987, there was less than 7,000 jobs left. This phenomenon is not temporary. No recovery is anticipated until the mid-1990's.
These problems are not peculiar to Canada. Naval production has suffered a significant drop in all countries, in all shipyards since the 1970's when it had reached record levels.
The worldwide industry had an overcapacity of some 40 per cent. In 1975, ships built had a total gross tonnage of some 34.2 million tonnes; the tonnage was only half as much in 1986. Last year, the drop was even more significant.
For example, according to the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, OECD, orders received by shipyards in Japan among others had registered a 14 per cent drop in the first quarter of 1986 over the same period in 1985. During that period, orders received by European shipyards had dropped 69 per cent.
This worldwide drop in the orders received by shipyards reflects not only the slump the market is going through but also the changes that have occurred in the geographic distribution of the worldwide industry. The domination of the world market by Japan and Western Europe countries is challenged by the emergence of new countries, including Korea, China and Taiwan. It should be noted, however, that even Korean shipyards have suffered the repercussions of the worldwide crisis. During the last year, Korea has seen its orders drop by 77 per cent.
Shipbuilding
In the last decade, there was a 45 per cent drop in the number of direct jobs created by the shipbuilding industry in Japan. Given the circumstances, a working group set up by the Japanese Government has recommended reducing by another 20 per cent the total capacity of shipyards in Japan by the end of 1987. It has also recommended that some shipyards be merged with a view to consolidating and streamlining the industry. For instance, two major shipyards operated by the Mitsui and Nippon Kokan corporations are said to be currently discussing the possibility of jointly reducing the capacities in that order. And Kawasaki, Hitachi and Sumitomo corporations are looking at the possibilility of merging their shipyards.
In West Germany, the total manpower employed by the shipbuilding industry has declined from 73,000 in 1975 to 43,000 in 1985. And 10,000 more jobs are expected to be lost. This loss of jobs has mainly affected Northern Germany's coastal areas, and the German Government has decided it would not attempt to maintain the industry's current capacity in those areas. Instead it is relying on the industry to submit new ways of restructuring itself to that end.
Sweden's shipbuilding industry was one of the most prosperous in the world ten years ago. Kockums, the last major shipyard, stopped building new merchant ships at the end of 1986.
In Canada, the Government did all it could to revitalize the shipbuilding industry without interfering with something that is primarily a private sector matter. However, I want to take this opportunity to explain how this Government is trying to help workers.
The Government has developed a three-prong strategy to review the situation. Firstly, the Government will continue protecting the Canadian market by imposing an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent on most ships.
Secondly, the Government will pursue a supply policy encouraging the Canadian shipbuilding industry. We are fully aware of the role Government supply practices have played and will continue to play in the shipbuilding area.
For the past five years, Government purchases have allowed domestic shipyards to keep 20 to 25 per cent of their jobs. The relative significance of Government purchases has been increasing regularly as commercial orders have declined. As of May 26, 1987, all orders for new construction came either from the Government itself or from Government agencies.
Purchases estimated at $1.6 billion should be made over the next five years in the defence sector, and those contracts will account for some 38 per cent of all Canadian shipyard orders. The Government may also make additional purchases valued between $700 million and $1.2 billion. Those orders would account for an extra 25 to 33 per cent share of total domestic shipyard revenues during that period.

September 11, 1987
Shipbuilding
Thirdly, the Government has already indicated it was willing to help the shipbuilding industry better face the declining demand. Elowever, the industry will have to reduce its capacity, which may force it to close down some yards or take alternative steps such as mergers, specializing or diversifying. The initiative however must come from the industry.
The Government is willing to help the industry implement restructuring programs capable of helping shipyards better compete, thereby reducing the negative impact on workers and communities.
The restructuring program developed by the Ontario shipbuilding industry was the first concrete result of that offer. The owners of the Collingwood shipyard have come to the conclusion that they could no longer operate the shipyard. With the owners of another major Ontario shipyard, they developed a program to reorganize their operations, essentially by closing the Collingwood shipyard and merging and modernizing the Port Weller and Port Arthur shipyards to make them more competitive.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on for quite some time speaking about various matters related to the shipyards, but we have to remember that, especially in the case of the Quebec shipyards, when the Lauzon workers had major problems last winter and were expecting some assistance, the federal Government did not hesitate to try to help them through various training and retraining programs, and so on, especially in the great region of Quebec. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I would like to underline the hard work of my colleague for Levis (Mr. Fontaine), who right from the start, has taken an interest in the shipyards and worked vigorously with the full support of all his colleagues from the Quebec Conservative caucus to find rational, logical and effective solutions to the real problems of shipbuilding in Canada, and it is not by creating so-called committees, such as suggested by the well-known Liberal prophet of doom and gloom, the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), that we can find real answers to the problems affecting the shipbuilding industry in Canada.


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker,
although we have heard a number of remarks aimed at undermining the suggestion advocated by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), I should like to indicate that what concerns me most after listening to Hon. Members who rose after my colleague from Montreal- Sainte-Marie is the fact that the Government has no intention of responding to the legitimate request that a committee be established to make an exhaustive study of measures required to keep Quebec's shipyards in operation. Everybody knows- and I think my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie has described the situation in unequivocal terms-the difficulties experienced by all employees and workers in the shipbuilding industry.
The only thing we are asking the Government to do is to strike a committee which would provide these workers and these regions which have been hard hit-shutdowns, fewer
contracts, series of measures taken by governments or management-which would provide these people with an opportunity to sit at a table and attempt to find solutions to the problems which have plagued these regions which I call designated. Sadly enough, the fact that the Government is not interested in entertaining this request will probably lead to a situation such that things will simply grow worse, and the first thing we will know is that there will be yet more lay-offs in the various regions involved, be it in Quebec City, Montreal or Sorel.
I think that if the government had agreed or would agree to consider this proposal seriously, it would provide representatives of both the government and the official Opposition with an opportunity to sit down not only to complain about what was not done or could have been done, but also to get together with representatives of the municipal and provincial governments. I suggest that if the government had agreed or would agree to this proposal, the workers of these shipyards would be delighted to say that the federal government is assuming at last its responsibilities and taking some action to help preserve and protect their jobs.
The situation is about the same in other industries, so that when representatives from various groups . . . The situation is almost identical in the case of the pollution of the Saint-Maurice River where groups should meet and for which the department or government should create a sort of committee on which they could sit. Unfortunately, we are aware that the Government is unwilling to give individuals faced with a problem a chance to discuss it, to sit around a table and find solutions to problems about which there is no co-operation and when I say co-operation, I mean at the local, regional, municipal, provincial and federal levels. I believe this is the best way to find solutions and it is not by hiding or letting a motion such as the one introduced by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) die on the Order Paper that we will find an adequate solution and, more particularly, that we will meet the needs of the workers in those shipyards for whom some sort of positive action from the Goverment would have shown its goodwill or at least its interest in their fate.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, obviously this government recognizes the tragic situation facing the shipbuilding industry, but the same solution is always offered, namely that we should establish a committee to address the problem.
With opposite members, the choice is either to establish a committee or to build ships. We heard the same old thing a moment ago from a guy who long on empty and ludicrous rhetoric blamed everybody around to finally come up with a nice solution of his own.
September 11, 1987

Mr. Speaker, I think that in spite of all the wonderful solutions we might have, we should still take into consideration the world situation. At the present time there is an overcapacity in shipbuilding, when supply exceeds demand, and in fact, on the international market, we build more ships than we need.
That does not mean we should stop shipbuilding altogether. But 1 fail to see how a committee could solve that problem. It might put forward some answers.
I listened to my colleagues from the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party when they said that the good Liberal provincial government had decided to act on its own. But let them go ahead and build ships for they too have a shipbuilding industry. The federal government operates Coast Guard vessels and icebreakers and also ferries. Let them build many ferries and we will then have a better service between Matane and Riviere-du-Loup, every half hour for instance. These obviously are not practical solutions but that's the story.
It is not the government responsibility to make up for the international market's deficiencies. But if there is now an overproduction of ships, if other countries build them at lower
Shipbuilding
costs, will a policy oblige Canadian shipowners, if there are any, to buy strictly Canadian products? That does not work either. Should we build ships just for the sake of keeping shipyards in operation? It is not workable either.
So we must pick more realistic options. The only one is to establish an economic climate which will bring about an improvement of the situation.
Mr. Speaker, more jobs have been created over the past three years than in the previous decade and a half. Interest rates, the inflation level are some of the factors which will allow those people to survive or retrain.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
The House stands adjourned until next Monday, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, September 14, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers