1973-03-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Isabelle.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs-Mr. Dupras.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek the consent of the House for a motion of urgent and pressing necessity brought about by the revelation by Mr. Andre Langlois, director of planning and development of the James Bay Development Corporation, who testified the other day in the injunction proceedings in the Superior Court in Quebec that on November 24 an agreement was signed by the Minister of the Environment on behalf of the federal government with the James Bay Development Corporation with respect to environmental matters. In light of yesterday's decision by the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development to have tabled before that committee correspondence between the federal government and the government of Quebec about the proposed James Bay development, and also the invitation to Premier Bourassa to appear before that committee, I would like to move the following motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 in order to have everything in one place:
That the agreement between the government of Canada and the James Bay Development Corporation dated November, 1972, relating to the environment in the area of the proposed James Bay hydro electric project be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Haliburton: 1.	Is the CP being subsidized by the government for the operation of the ferry "Princess of Acadia" and, if so (a) in what form (b) by how much?
2.	How many days did the ferry operate in the past year without full engine and heating capacity?
3.	When did the ferry last pass through steamship inspection?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. No.
2.	C.P.R. has replied as follows: "When a new vessel is put into service a period of from one to two years is required in order to eliminate minor difficulties which become evident during this period. For this reason there have been occasions when all four engines, or both heating boilers have not been in operation. However, it should be pointed out that the vessel is quite capable of maintaining the schedule under normal conditions with three engines in operation and heating can be provided by one steam boiler. As many of these repairs or maintenance are carried out during the course of a voyage, it is not possible to provide a specific reply."
3.	December 18, 1972.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Post Office Department on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1979-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?

March 14, 1973
Order Paper Questions Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):
1.
*325,000.00


[Stage Direction]
Names and Addresses
Purpose of Contract
Amount
Inter-Canada (1968-69) Montreal, P.Q	
Foster Advertising (1969-1970) Montreal, P.Q	
Foster Advertising (1970-1971) Montreal, P.Q	
Krohn & Co. (1971-1972) Montreal, P.Q	
Agenee Canadienne de Publicity (1971-1972) Montreal, P.Q....
Foster Advertising (1971-1972) Montreal, P.Q	
Introduction of various Post Office projects and services Introduction of various Post Office projects and services Introduction of various Post Office projects and services Introduction of various Post Office projects and services Introduction of various Post Office projects and services Introduction of various Post Office projects and services
$325,000.00 *412,161.00 $362,619.63 $ 77,523.21 $275,174.45 $753,088.48
3.
Names and Addresses
Purpose of Contract
Amount
Agenee Canadienne de Publicity, Montreal, P.Q.
Foster Advertising, Montreal, P.Q	
Krohn <fc Co., Montreal, P.Q	
Transportation tenders, general publicity
Post Code publicity	
Marketing publicity
[Stage Direction]
*547,600.00
Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How many inmates of federal penal institutions were granted parole during 1972 and of these, how many had previously received parole (a) once (b) twice (c) three times (d) more than three times?
2.	(a) How many inmates were granted parole in 1971 and of these, how many had previously received parole (i) once (ii) twice (iii) three times (iv) more than three times (b) of those who received parole in 1971, how many have been convicted of a criminal offence since?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. In 1972, the National Parole Board made 2,150 decisions to grant parole to inmates of federal penal institutions, (a), (b), (c) and (d), not available. The compilation of this information would require laborious searching of 2,150 files.
2.	(a) In 1971, the National Parole Board made 2,798 decisions to grant parole to inmates of federal penal institutions. The number of actual releases was 2,454*, out of which 825 have had previous parole experience, (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)-not available, (b) Not available at this time.
*N.B.: The number of persons granted parole in a given year is not the same as the number of actual releases on parole. The decision to grant parole may be subsequently cancelled before actual release or, alternatively, the release may take place in a subsequent year.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Has consideration been given to the feasibility of altering CMHC specifications for the construction of dwelling units to increase the amount of insulation materials required in these dwellings to offset the shortage of fossil fuels and the tendency of the cost of fossil fuels to rise?
2.	What studies have been made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the National Research Council in connection with house insulation specifications?
3.	What is the nature of experimental homes being constructed under the Housing and Urban Development Agency and what are the evaluations of these experiments?
[Mr. Nystrom.)


Hon. Ron Basiord (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1.
A proposal to increase the amount of insulation required in the construction of dwelling units has been prepared by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for consideration by the Associate Committee on the National Building Code.
2.	Studies on the requirements for insulation of housing have been carried out by the National Research Council, with the following reports having been published: (a) Determining Optimum Thickness of Insulation for Heated Buildings, NRC 8151. (b) Insulation Thickness for Houses, HN 21. (c) Insulation for Northern Buildings, NRC 5280. (d) Insulation of Houses, NRC 1386. (e) Thermal Insulation in Housing, CBD 16. (f) Insulation of the Home, BB2.
3.	The experimental houses built under the sponsorship of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, with financial support from C.M.H.C., are designed with the object of testing new materials and techniques in home construction in the field. The major items tested in nine experimental projects to date have been prefabricated concrete foundation, plastic piping, water recycling equipment, pressure tested wood foundation, steel construction, reduction in size and number of structural components, new types of roofing, and new heating system designs. The program has involved the Association's local chapters in research activities, as well as manufacturers of components. The performance of materials and techniques in these projects is monitored by the Association in order to identify possible areas for experiment to be followed into the future. Grants totalling $133,000 have been approved by C.M.H.C. under Part V of the National Housing Act to assist in financing the construction of these experimental houses, and in monitoring the results. In addition, the construction of a number of these houses has been financed by NHA loans which have totalled $139,600.


Mr. Wagner: 1.	Did the Minister of Transport meet with or receive any correspondence from Mr. Bernard Pinard, a member of the Quebec Ministry, following the granting of landing rights at Toronto International Airport to airlines such as Lufthansa?
March 14, 1973

2.	On what dates were such meetings held or such correspondence received?
3.	What were the specific requests made by Mr. Pinard?
4.	Which airlines with landing rights at Montreal have obtained or requested such landing rights, from September, 1970, to date?


Jean Marchand: 1. Yes.
2.	Correspondence was received by the Minister of Transport from Mr. Pinard in May 1972, and January 1973, and the Minister of Transport has talked with Mr. Pinard several times.
3.	The exchange of correspondence between the former Minister of Transport, Mr. Jamieson, and Mr. Pinard, was made public by tabling in the Quebec National Assembly on 13th December 1972.
4.	The Italian airline, Alitalia, was granted landing rights in Toronto under the revised bilateral air agreement between Canada and Italy, signed in September 1972. If the new bilateral air agreement with the FRG, initialled on December 22, 1972, is approved by the Government of Canada, the German airline, Lufthansa, will receive landing rights in Toronto. We know of interest in several other countries, whose airlines fly only to Montreal, in serving Toronto, but will only know for certain what these interests are, specifically, when actual negotiations commence.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Do the companies currently bidding for the six-hundred million dollar government contract for replacements for the Argus anti-submarine patrol aircraft intend to have work on the contract distributed across Canada to Canadian firms and, if so, what percentage of this contract will be allotted to firms in Manitoba?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to refuse to purchase supplies from foreign military suppliers unless a fair share of the work is spread across Canada?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. Companies submitting proposals are required to state the industrial benefits that will accrue to Canada if they are the successful bidder.
2. It is the policy of the Canadian government to always take into consideration Canadian content when selecting a source of supply.


Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1971, has the Canadian National Railways had any discussions with Eurocan Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd., of Kitimat, B.C., regarding freight rates which CNR is prepared to charge for wood chips transported to the Company's pulp mill at Kitimat and, if so, what freight rates have been (a) offered (b) established?


Jean Marchand: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: (a) The Canadian National is currently discussing with Eurocan Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. a new basis of freight rates to apply on the movement of woodchips to that company's pulp mill at Kitimat. As these freight rate changes are still being discussed, along with many important terms and conditions, it is not possible at this point to
Order Paper Questions
specify what has been offered, (b) As the matter is still under discussion, nothing new has been established.


Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1971, has the Canadian National Railways had any discussions with Columbia Cellulose Company Limited of Prince Rupert, B.C. regarding the freight rates which CNR is prepared to charge for wood chips transported to the Company's kraft and/or sulphite mill near Prince Rupert, B.C. and, if so, what freight rates have been (a) offered (b) established?


Jean Marchand: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: (a) No general change in woodchip rates for the Columbia Cellulose Company Limited's pulp mills near Prince Rupert, B.C. have yet been discussed with that Company and no offers have been made, (b) As a consequence of the above, there has been no general change made to freight rates on woodchips transported to these mills.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to consider expanding in 1973 the number of countries having landing rights at Toronto International Airport?
2.	What countries will enjoy landing rights at the new Calgary International Airport?
3.	What amount has been spent in fees for consultants and other professional services in connection with the proposed Pickering airport?


Jean Marchand: 1. Under a new air agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany, now before the government for approval, the German airline Lufthansa would be allowed to operate into Toronto. In addition, bilateral air negotiations are expected to occur with a number of countries in 1973, in which access to Toronto by the airlines of these countries are expected to be one of the subjects of discussion. Before granting any such rights careful consideration is given to the compensation another country offers in exchange for Toronto, and to the over-all balance of benefits to Canada.
2.	Canada and the U.S.A.
3.	The total accumulated expenditure to December 31, 1972 in fees for consultants and other professional services for the planning and development of the Toronto Area Airports System is $2,021,000. This amount includes consulting and other professional work to evaluate many alternate sites, develop traffic forecasts and prepare economic and ecological studies, etc. It would be impracticable to maintain separate accounting systems for each site. Expenditures for the Pickering site are therefare included in the total given.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Did the Department of Regional Economic Expansion give assistance in the form of a grant to a laboratory animal supply business situated South of Winnipeg and, if so, what was the name of the company and the amount of the grant?

March 14, 1973
Order Paper Questions
2.	Did the Department make a grant to BIO Breeding Ltd. and, if so, on what date was it accepted and for how much?
3.	Did the Food and Drug Directorate, Department of National Health and Welfare call for tenders to supply laboratory animals from April 1, 1972 to September 30, 1973?
4.	What are the names of the companies supplying these animals and the proportion of the requirements of each?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	The Food and Drug Directorate did not call tenders for supply of laboratory animals from April 1, 1972 to September 30, 1973. Supply agreements are awarded to suppliers of certain strains of animals. This procedure is necessary to maintain continuity of the strain initially procured for the researchers.
4.	Woodlyn Farms, Guelph, Ontario; 25 per cent. Bio Breeding Ltd., Blackburn Hamlet, Ontario; 25 per cent. Quebec Breeding Laboratories and Farms, St. Constant, Quebec; 20 per cent. Rockland Rabbit Centre, Rockland, Ontario; 5 per cent. High Oak Ranch, Goodwood, Ontario; 5 per cent. Queen's University Vivarium, Kingston, Ontario; 5 per cent. Connaught Research Laboratories, Toronto, Ontario; 5 per cent. Laka Biological Supplies, Montreal, Quebec; 7 per cent. Jackson Laboratories, Maine, United States of America; 3 per cent.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the past two years, has the Treasury Board evaluated the Building Equipment, Accessories and Materials Program (BEAM), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as to its efficiency and effectiveness and, if so, what were the dates of the evaluative reports?
2.	What recommendations were made by the Treasury Board as a result of those evaluations?
3.	What recommendations were accepted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to what extent have those recommendations been implemented?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.
No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the past two years, has the Treasury Board evaluated the Counselling Assistance to Small Enterprises Program (CASE), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as to its efficiency and effectiveness and, if so, what were the dates of the evaluative reports?
2.	What recommendations were made by the Treasury Board as a result of those evaluations?
3.	What recommendations were accepted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to what extent have those recommendations been implemented?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the past two years, has the Treasury Board evaluated the Development of Management Courses Program (DMC), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as to its efficiency and effectiveness and, if so, what were the dates of the evaluative reports?
2.	What recommendations were made by the Treasury Board as a result of those evaluations?
3.	What recommendations were accepted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to what extent have those recommendations been implemented?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the past two years, has the Treasury Board evaluated the Automotive Adjustment Assistance Program (AAA), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as to its efficiency and effectiveness and, if so, what were the dates of the evaluative reports?
2.	What recommendations were made by the Treasury Board as a result of those evaluations?
3.	What recommendations were accepted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to what extent have those recommendations been implemented?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the past two years, has the Treasury Board evaluated the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIP), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as to its efficiency and effectiveness and, if so, what were the dates of the evaluative reports?
2.	What recommendations were made by the Treasury Board as a result of those evaluations?
3.	What recommendations were accepted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to what extent have those recommendations been implemented?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
There was a draft report prepared by the Treasury Board Secretariat that summarized the preliminary results of some econometric tests of one aspect of several industrial incentive programs, including the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIP). This draft report did not seek to assess whether or not the benefits of these industrial incentive programs, in terms of their impact on the realization of the government objectives, warranted the costs incurred in carrying them out. The draft report was dated

March 14, 1973

February 9, 1973. Responsibility for the evaluation of the effectiveness of programs is borne by individual departments. If such delegation did not take place there would be either massive duplication, because the Treasury Board Secretariat would require almost as much technical expertise as departments now have, or the ministers responsible for particular programs would not have the kind of advice they need if they are to propose program changes designed to realize the government's objectives more effectively. The Treasury Board Secretariat has three functions to perform in so far as program evaluation is concerned: i. it carries out particular program evaluations as case studies for the purpose of demonstrating what kinds of evaluations can be achieved; ii. it develop* evaluative techniques that are applicable in assessing a whole range of programs; iii. it seeks to ensure that departmental evaluations of programs that affect the same objectives are carried out on a comparable basis so that interprogram comparisons can be made. Program evaluation is a continuous process within individual departments providing a flow of information to ministers and deputy heads on the extent to which government objectives are being affected by programs and of the changes overtime in the unit cost of producing particular program outputs. Therefore, it should not be inferred from the fact that a Treasury Board Secretariat evaluation report of a particular program does not exist that it is not being evaluated. Virtually every department in government now has the resources to carry out evaluations of the efficiency of its operations and the cost effectiveness of its programs.
2.	The draft report referred to under 1 is classified as "confidential" on the grounds that it contains expressions of the opinions of officials, the release of which would prejudice the efficient and effective discharge of the government's responsibilities.
3.	See the answer to Part 2 above.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the past two years, has the Treasury Board evaluated the Program for Export Market Development (EMD), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as to its efficiency and effectiveness and, if so, what were the dates of the evaluative reports?
2.	What recommendations were made by the Treasury Board as a result of those evaluations?
3.	What recommendations were accepted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to what extent have those recommendations been implemented?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the past two years, has the Treasury Board evaluated the Employment Support Program (ESP), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as to its efficiency
Order Paper Questions
and effectiveness and, if so, what were the dates of the evaluative reports?
2.	What recommendations were made by the Treasury Board as a result of those evaluations?
3.	What recommendations were accepted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to what extent have those recommendations been implemented?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the past two years, has the Treasury Board evaluated the General Adjustment Assistance Program (GAAP), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as to its efficiency and effectiveness and, if so, what were the dates of the evaluative reports?
2.	What recommendations were made by the Treasury Board as a result of those evaluations?
3.	What recommendations were accepted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to what extent have those recommendations been implemented?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the past two years, has the Treasury Board evaluated the Industrial Design Assistance Program (IDAP), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as to its efficiency and effectiveness and, if so, what were the dates of the evaluative reports?
2.	What recommendations were made by the Treasury Board as a result of those evaluations?
3.	What recommendations were accepted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to what extent have those recommendations been implemented?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the past two years, has the Treasury Board evaluated the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act (IRDIA), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as to its efficiency and effectiveness and, if so, what were the dates of the evaluative reports?
2.	What recommendations were made by the Treasury Board as a result of those evaluations?
3.	What recommendations were accepted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to what extent have those recommendations been implemented?

March 14, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
There was a draft report prepared by the Treasury Board Secretariat that summarized the preliminary results of some econometric tests of one aspect of several industrial incentive programs, including the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act (IRDIA). This draft report did not seek to assess whether or not the benefits of these industrial incentive programs, in terms of their impact on the realization of the government objectives, warranted the costs incurred in carrying them out. The draft report was dated February 9, 1973.
2.	The draft report referred to under 1 is classified as "confidential" on the grounds that it contains expressions of the opinions of officials, the release of which would prejudice the efficient and effective discharge of the government's reponsibilities.
3.	See the answer to Part 2 above.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the past two years, has the Treasury Board evaluated the Machinery Remission Program (MACH), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as to its efficiency and effectiveness and, if so, what were the dates of the evaluative reports?
2.	What recommendations were made by the Treasury Board as a result of those evaluations?
3.	What recommendations were accepted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to what extent have those recommendations been implemented?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the past two years, has the Treasury Board evaluated the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Remission Program (MVM), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as to its efficiency and effectiveness and, if so, what were the dates of the evaluative reports?
2.	What recommendations were made by the Treasury Board as a result of those evaluations?
3.	What recommendations were accepted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to what extent have those recommendations been implemented?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the past two years, has the Treasury Board evaluated the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology (PAIT), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as to its efficiency and effectiveness and, if so, what were the dates of the evaluative reports?
2.	What recommendations were made by the Treasury Board as a result of those evaluations?
3.	What recommendations were accepted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to what extent have those recommendations been implemented?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
There was a draft report prepared by the Treasury Board Secretariat that summarized the preliminary results of some econometric tests of one aspect of several industrial incentive programs, including the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology (APIT). This draft report did not seek to assess whether or not the benefits of these industrial incentive programs, in terms of their impact on the realization of the government objectives, warranted the costs incurred in carrying them out. The draft report was dated February 9, 1973.
2.	The draft report referred to under 1 is classified as "confidential" on the grounds that it contains expressions of the opinions of officials, the release of which would prejudice the efficient and effective discharge of the government's responsibilities.
3.	See the answer to Part 2 above.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the past two years, has the Treasury Board evaluated the Program to Enhance Productivity (PEP), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as to its efficiency and effectiveness and, if so, what were the dates of the evaluative reports?
2.	What recommendations were made by the Treasury Board as a result of those evaluations?
3.	What recommendations were accepted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to what extent have those recommendations been implemented?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the past two years, has the Treasury Board evaluated the Ship Construction Subsidy Program (SCSP), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as to its efficiency and effectiveness and, if so, what were the dates of the evaluative reports?
2.	What recommendations were made by the Treasury Board as a result of those evaluations?
3.	What recommendations were accepted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to what extent have those recommendations been implemented?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
(Mr. Broadbent.]
March 14, 1973


Mr. Andre: 1.	What was the cost of production, printing and distribution of the Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972, for the Department of Transport?
2.	How many copies of the Report were distributed?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister oi Transport):: 1. $8,101.
2. Three thousand four hundred and fifty.


Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. One thousand five hundred and ten.
2.	$15,001-$16,000, 40; $16,001-$17,000, 14; $17,001-$18,000, 14; $18,001-$19,000, 3; $19,001-$20,000, 7; $20,001-$21,000, 5; $21,001-$22,000, 10; $22,001-$23,000, 4; $23,001-$24,000, 4; $24,001-$25,000, 2; $25,001-$26,000, 2; $35,000-$39,000, 1.
3.	One thousand eight hundred and twenty-four.
4.	$18,001-$19,000, 5; $19,001-$20,000, 14; $20,001-$21,000, 17; $21,001-$22,000, 17; $22,001-$23,000, 8; $23,001-$24,000, 4; $24,001-$25,000, 3; $25,001-$26,000, 18; $26,001-$27,000, 4; $27,001-$28,000, 3; $28,001-$29,000, 2; $29,001-$30,000, 1; $25,000-$31,000, 2; $28,000-$35,000, 2; $40,000-$45,000, 1.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North: Centre):
With reference to the reply to Starred Question No. 811, as recorded on page 1505 of Hansard for February 21, 1973, will the Minister of Finance now say whether he has discussed with the chartered banks the need for the pensions paid to their employees to be escalated annually by an amount at least equal to the rise in the cost of living and, if so, what has been the response of each of the chartered banks with whom he has had such a discussion?


Hon. lohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker as indicated in the reply to starred question No. 811, as recorded on page 1505 of Hansard of February 21, 1973, the Minister of Finance has not discussed the subject directly with the chartered banks since pensions paid to retired employees are normally a matter left entirely to the discretion of all private business corporations. However, the Inspector-General of Banks has spoken to the Canadian Bankers' Association to ascertain what are the practices of banks.
Responses from all the largest banks indicated that, while practices vary in some detail and payments are not specifically tied to the cost of living index, they all have for some time been making special payments each year
Order Paper Questions
out of revenues (not from pension funds) to all retired personnel or survivors, normally after they have been retired for five years. I have, however, drawn the hon. member's starred questions Nos. 811 and 1082 to the attention of the presidents of each of the chartered banks.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of the Secretary of State on (a) January 1, 1963 (b) January 1, 1973?
2.	How many people in each of these years were receiving salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) over $20,000?


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 1. (a) 752; (b) 1,893.
2. Information not available for 1963. As of January 1, 1973: (a) 949; (b) 839; (c) 105.


Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, was the total expenditure on national defence between 1945 and 1972 inclusive?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 


[Stage Direction]
CBC-CONTRACT WITH GRANT McLEAN AND/OR VISUAL EDUCATION CENTRE
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Does CBC have a contract with Mr. Grant McLean and/or Visual Education Centre, 95 Berkeley St., Toronto, which gives Mr. McLean and/or Visual Education Centre the sole right to sell certain films of an educational nature after they have been broadcast by CBC and, if so, how much does Mr. McLean and/or Visual Education Centre pay for this concession?
2.	Is Mr. Grant McLean of Visual Education Centre a former employee of CBC?
3.	How many directors or owners of Visual Education Centre, 95 Berkeley Street, Toronto, are either former or present employees of CBC?


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, the CBC advises me as follows: 1. The CBC signed a contract with Visual Education Centre, 115 Berkeley St. Toronto. This contract, which came into effect on 1 April 1970, gives VEC the exclusive right to distribute certain CBC films after they have been broadcast, but these do not include films of an educational nature commonly known as educational films. VEC pays the CBC nothing for this distribution right, but the CBC does get a percentage of gross receipts.
2.	Mr. Grant McLean was never employed by the CBC.
3.	No director or owner of Visual Education Centre is or ever was in the employ of the CBC.

March 14, 1973
Motions for Papers



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Treasury Board on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.



CONTRACTS FOR GOVERNMENT FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Andre: 1.	Since the announcement by the Minister of State for Science and Technology of the policy to contract out government funded research and development, how many contracts have been let?
2.	What firms have been granted contracts, and how much is the contract in each case?
3.	How many contracts are now under negotiation or being considered?
Return tabled.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, 70 days ago I put question No. 52 on the order paper. It reads as follows:
What is the amount, since July 1971, by province, that has been expended by all departments of government, in grants or other assistance, to corporations, partnerships, etc. to provide for the establishment of new industries or the expansion of already existing industries?
There were two additional parts to the question. There can be no justification whatever on the part of the government for not answering this question. It may be a bit trying for the government to answer because it will show, so far as the western provinces are concerned, that they have been getting only crumbs from the rich man's table.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 186 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary , is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 186 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 186-Mr. Forrestall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House all correspondence between the Province of Nova Scotia and the federal government or between any persons or agencies working on their behalf, with respect to the possibility of and negotiations for joint Federal-Provincial compensation for water, wind, or other damage arising out of Hurricane Bess in August, 1971, including any applications for compensation, and any notice of rejection of same.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 119, 121, 152, 153, 154 and 155.



COPY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE AND HOCKEY CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 119-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all agreements between the National Hockey League and Hockey Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I move it on his behalf, Mr. Speaker.


John Mercer Reid: The federal government does not have administrative responsibility for either Hockey Canada or the National Hockey League. Accordingly, we regret to say that the federal government is not in a position to issue an order for a copy of all agreements between the National Hockey League and Hockey Canada. I would, therefore, suggest that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



AGREEMENT BETWEEN NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE AND HOCKEY CANADA CONCERNING CANADA-SOVIET UNION SERIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 121-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the agreement between the National Hockey League and Hockey Canada concerning the Canada-Soviet Union series.

March 14, 1973
Stanley Howard Knowles: Same motion; same response.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF MEMORANDUM ENTITLED &quot;REPORT OF THE INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON HEROIN CONTROL&quot;, APRIL 10, 1972

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 152-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum sent to the Cabinet on April 10, 1972, entitled "Report of the Inter-departmental Committee on Heroin Control".
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this is a cabinet document and therefore cannot be tabled. Accordingly, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important document on the control of heroin and it should be made public. After all, most of us know the contents already.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF MEMORANDUM ENTITLED &quot;REPORT OF THE INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON HEROIN CONTROL&quot;, MARCH 20, 1972

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 153-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum sent to the Cabinet on March 20, 1972, entitled "Report of the Inter-departmental Committee on Heroin Control".
John Mercer Reid: The same motion, Mr. Speaker, and the same response.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The same response here, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO &quot;NATIONAL


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 154-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the document or documents sent to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, dated November 15, 1971, recommending a "National Institute on Alcoholism and Drug Addiction".
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the government is unable to accept the hon. member's motion since no document recommending a national institute on alcoholism and drug addiction was sent to the Minister of National Health and Welfare on or around November 15, 1971. I would therefore suggest that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In that case I will withdraw the motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The rrjotion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
Oral Questions



KAMLOOPS INDIAN BAND NO. 1-FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 155-Mr. Oberle:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the financial statement of the operating and capital accounting of the Kamloops, B.C. Indian Band No. 1 and copies of individual transactions in respect to the purchase and sale of livestock and capital assets for the past 12 months.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, an election for chief and councillors of the Kamloops Band Council was held on December 21, 1972. However, an appeal against the election has been submitted and until such time as the appeal has been disposed of the band is without a council and therefore consent to produce papers by the council is not possible. Under the circumstances I ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Oberle:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and arises from the reported discrepancy in some 2,000 out of 28,000 cases investigated in connection with the Delorimier unemployment office in Montreal in that the TP4U slips issued from the unemployment insurance office in Ottawa showed higher payments during 1972 in at least 2,000 cases than could be accounted for from the records of the Delorimier office. Can the minister give the House an explanation of this discrepancy and tell us why there are no records, no microfilm record in Ottawa to prove or disprove the accuracy of the TP4U forms issued from Ottawa?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition's question but I regret that I cannot give the information today. I will take it as notice and endeavour to furnish a reply to the House at the earliest opportunity.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister tell the House whether verification checks have been made at other offices throughout the country and, if so, have similar discrepancies between the records of the local office and the TP4U slips issued from Ottawa shown up? Also, can the minister state whether microfilm and verification papers are missing in these cases?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will take supplementary notice of the supplementary question.

March 14, 1973
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to understand from what the minister says that he has not launched any investigation into these matters yet?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman would be better taken to understand that I would prefer to get all the facts before replying.


MANPOWER
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and relates to the directive given by the minister to manpower placement officers to give priority for job placement to those people drawing unemployment insurance benefits and those receiving welfare. I should like to ask the minister where this leaves those thousands of workers who have run out of benefits, are still looking for work and are not drawing welfare?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase the question. The question asked in those terms, I suggest to the hon. member, at least sounds rhetorical and the rule is well known that rhetorical questions cannot be asked. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase the question.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase the question. Where does the directive given by the minister to local placement offices leave workers who are not drawing benefits and are not on welfare but are still looking for work?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question, for it gives me the opportunity to make this comment. When the deputy minister and I discussed the question of priorities I distinctly had the understanding that we were talking totally about the local initiatives program. When I announced in December that the local initiatives program was being extended, I said that new criteria would be added to this effect: the first priority would be to draw from those on unemployment insurance, then from those on welfare rolls, and so on. I regret any misinterpretation or misunderstanding that may have come about from the deputy minister's dispatch to the field on Friday. He and I are going to discuss the matter this afternoon and clarify any misunderstanding that may have occurred.


Mr. Alexander:: Withdraw!


William Heward Grafftey: In view of the incredible confusion that has been brought about by this directive, will the minister now withdraw it?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add to my comments. I will withdraw or otherwise based on my discussion this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Skeena and try to complete one round of questioning. I will return to this matter later if hon. members have other supplementaries.


DIRECTIVE ESTABLISHING PRIORITY IN JOB REFERRALS-REQUEST THAT MINISTER EXPLAIN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. As I understood him a minute ago, the minister now says that this directive applied only to local initiatives grants. In that case can he explain to the House why he gave such an elaborate explanation yesterday as to how this directive operated in connection with unemployment insurance or in connection with the administration of that program.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am quite frankly saying to the House that my emphasis, as announced in December, along with that of the Minister of Finance when we announced the winter program-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Withdraw!


Robert Knight Andras: -was to give priority to people on unemployment insurance and social welfare in so far as the local initiatives program was concerned. If confusion developed between the deputy minister and myself, I apologize to the House for that. These mistakes can happen. If there is confusion, we will remove it forthwith as soon as I have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with him.


Mr. Lundrigan:: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Skeena. He will be recognized in a moment. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate rises on a question of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Having had the opportunity last evening to study in detail the statement made by the minister yesterday and having read subsequent press reports, I now rise on a question of privilege, perhaps more in the interest of the hon. member for Verdun than in my own interest and that of my party. There has been a serious misrepresentation, unintentional I am sure, to the effect that the directive that was debated and referred to in the press was the original directive issued last October. My information is that there was a directive in October which had to do with LIP. My further information is that a subsequent directive was issued which was all-encompassing. Consequently the minister, inadvertently I am sure, has reflected seriously on the hon. member for Verdun. I would think the hon.

March 14, 1973

member for Verdun would not want to leave this matter unchallenged, and I should like him to have the opportunity of clarifying his position because his conduct and behaviour have been called into account not only with respect to the LIP aspect of the directive but also in terms of the witch hunt that is now being conducted. This has nothing to do with the original 1972 intention of the department to try to place people in jobs and not track them down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member for Verdun thinks he has a question of privilege, of course he will be recognized for that purpose. I suggest at the same time that the point raised by the hon. member is the same kind of point on which there have been numerous rulings over many years from day to day that disputes as to facts or statements that have been made or as to the interpretation of statements made by members cannot be raised by way of a question of privilege. It is simply a dispute between individual members. I rule that the hon. member does not have a question of privilege, but if the hon. member for Verdun claims that he has a question of privilege I will listen to him, as I did to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Speaker, I might have two. One is that I do not want anyone to think I have lost my ability to defend myself in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The second and more important one is that an article in the Ottawa Journal, I believe, inadvertently stated that I was the originator of the document that appeared yesterday. I would like to clarify the matter and say, because it corroborates the statement of the present minister, that in October I did indeed give instructions that the unemployed be given priority with regard to LIP and on-the-job training in light of the fact that these programs are designed to alleviate unemployment, whereas in the previous year many employed people took advantage of LIP to the detriment of the unemployed.


JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-PUBLICATION OF RESULTS
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment with regard to the agreement between his department and the James Bay Development Corporation of last November relating to environmental studies in the area of the James Bay hydroelectric project. Can the minister tell the House whether there is any cost to be borne by the federal government with respect to those studies?
Hon. jack Davis (Minister of the Environment): Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I recall, the federal taxpayer will be putting up half the cost of the various environmental studies that are being carried out in co-operation with the James Bay Development Corporation.
25789-67J
Oral Questions


Frank Howard: May I also ask the minister who will be doing the studies? Who will be initiating them and doing the actual work? Also, will the results of the studies be made public?


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Speaker, most, if not all, of the studies that are being paid for by the federal taxpayer will be done either by experts in the employ of Environment Canada or consultants retained by the federal government. The results of all of these studies will, of course, be made public.


Frank Howard: Inasmuch as this agreement or document has been kept secret up until now, is the minister prepared to table it in the House?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am informed that it is a public document.


JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-ALLEGED REQUEST BY INDIAN AFFAIRS BRANCH FOR LEGAL OPINION ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister confirm that his officials have now been requested by officials of the Department of Indian Affairs to present a legal opinion on the responsibilities of the federal government in the James Bay affair under the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act of 1912? Can he also indicate when that opinion will be forthcoming and whether it will be made available to the House?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the various departments involved are constantly consulting the Department of Justice for legal opinions about situations in which they are involved and these opinions are furnished from time to time.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Since some unemployed have been receiving T4 slips showing amounts that they have not yet received, and since some unemployed are still waiting for the Commission to send them their TP4U slips, could the minister say if he intends to penalize the Unemployment Insurance Commission on the same basis as Canadian employers who produce T4 slips later than February 28?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, no widespread incidents of this kind have been reported to me. However, in the cases that have been reported I have had the matter discussed with the Unemployment Insurance Commission and I think it is co-

March 14, 1973
Oral Questions
operating fully. So far I have not had anyone suggest laying a charge against the commission.
fTranslation]


MEASURES TO RECTIFY INACCURACY OF TP4U SLIPS SENT BY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could he tell the House what steps he means to take to ensure that beneficiaries who are affected by the mistakes on TP4U slips receive corrected slips showing the true amounts that they were paid, in order that they may be able to file their tax returns in time and state their income for 1972?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will try to give the hon. member an answer to that question when I reply to the Leader of the Opposition.


MANPOWER
Mr. I. R. Ellis (Hastings):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that all the LIP grant funds have now been allocated, does the statement the minister made yesterday not really mean that young people leaving schools and veterans not in receipt of unemployment insurance or welfare are the lowest priority categories in terms of referral to jobs and job training?


Robert Knight Andras: I do not think it means that at all. In the first place, there is the summer employment program for youth announced by my colleague, the Secretary of State, which includes substantial funds for OFY and other schemes for assisting students. As far as veterans are concerned, there will be no inhibition or prohibition affecting the placement of veterans where jobs are available and where they are capable of taking them, as far as the Department of Manpower is concerned.


PROPOSAL TO USE RAIL TRANSPORTATION FOR ALASKAN OIL-STATEMENT BY MINISTER-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. John Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. It relates to the announcement made recently by the Premier of British Columbia with respect to an alternative route to transport oil from the north. Was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources expressing the policy of the government yester-

day when he stated that British Columbia's proposed oil route was "inadequate", and that a Mackenzie Valley pipeline would best serve Canadian and United States interests?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I am not
aware of that part of the minister's statement. I do know he made a statement to the effect that he had only received notice of the British Columbia proposal the day before and that he could not be expected to enunciate a policy with regard to it within one day. If that is his position, the other parts of the quotation should be interpreted in light of that statement.


John Allen Fraser: Is it the position of the government that Premier Barrett's proposal is inadequate and that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline route would in fact be the best route to serve Canadian and United States interests?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, we can hardly answer whether the proposal is inadequate or not until we have studied it, and we have only known of it for two days.


John Allen Fraser: Would the Prime Minister advise the House whether there is at present any committee, or any arrangement between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada, to ensure a common and united Canadian position with respect to the problem related to the TAPS tanker route?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know of no such committee, Mr. Speaker. I believe the present government of British Columbia has just come around to being interested in this issue. But of course we have been in communication with the leader of the Liberal opposition in British Columbia who is very well advanced in his consideration of this problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Boisvert) wishes to ask a supplementary to the last question; I shall attempt to finish with the matter we are now debating, and shall then recognize the hon. member for Drummond so that he may put his supplementary.

For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


PROPOSAL TO USE RAIL TRANSPORTATION FOR ALASKAN OIL-SUGGESTED WIDENING OF STUDY
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: My
question is a supplementary to the Prime Minister on the same subject. In the light of the answer given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources yesterday to the hon. member for New Westminster, would the Prime Minister, in view of his interest in the alienation of the west, ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to add another dimension to his study, namely, the restrictive difficulties imposed by the Alaska panhandle on the development of that part of northwestern Canada? If this dimension were included it might add more body to the study and make it much more worthwhile.
March 14, 1973


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That seems like an interesting representation, Mr. Speaker. I will see that the minister is made aware of it.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to have a study made of the British Columbia proposal regarding the transport of Prudhoe Bay oil to the United States, and will the Prime Minister tell the House which of the ministers, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Minister of Northern Affairs, will be responsible for making the study and whether or not they will be in touch with the British Columbia government regarding their decision?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that the British Columbia proposal was made known to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He will, of course, wish to study it from his point of view and from the point of view of the Department of Northern Affairs. I cannot say at this point whether he will wish to undertake as deep a study as was made in connection with the Mackenzie Valley route which, as the hon. member knows, has been the subject of very costly environmental studies over the last two years. I do not know whether the minister, having taken a first look at the British Columbia proposal, will decide to have such deep studies made or whether, for other reasons, he will decide it is not worth a study of that type because, among other things, I understand the route would be more useful for the transport of United States oil and other resources than for Canadian needs.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Because of the mess in issuing T4U slips to the unemployed, would the minister assure the House that the penniless unemployed will not be penalized because they are late filing their income tax returns?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think tomorrow is going to be my TP4U day for everybody.



MANPOWER


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary to the minister. In view of the fact that the dispatch of the deputy minister referred to by the minister yesterday is
Oral Questions
clearly a regulation as defined by the Statutory Regulations Act under the Unemployment Insurance Act, was the approval of the Governor in Council obtained for this regulation and, in any event, will the minister confer with the two joint chairmen of the Statutory Regulations Committee to consider this regulation in order that we may get at the truth of this matter? This would be a very interesting first case for the committee to consider.


Robert Knight Andras: When I have had a chance to examine all the pitfalls inherent in that question I shall give the hon. member a reply.


Gerald William Baldwin: In breach of the law.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister stated to the fund-raising dinner in Toronto last week, "as we had answers for Quebec and the Maritimes, we are now defining answers for the west", can he advise the House just what these answers are so we may have a preview of what the programs for the west will be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question cannot be in order. The hon. member might wish to rephrase it. He will appreciate that the type of general information for which he is asking would normally be made available by way of a statement on motions.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


George Harris Hees: I will simply ask the Prime Minister this question, then. In view of the right hon. gentleman's belief that the government had the answers for Quebec and the Maritimes, can he advise us as to the basis of his program for the west?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As regards the program for the west, the Speech from the Throne mentioned three main areas by way of suggestion, but we took the point of view that we would want not only the western governments but the various institutions in the west to make their opinions known to us so that we could discuss with them and look at the solutions they propose. As the hon. member may remember if he checks the Speech from the Throne, the areas we suggested were transportation, western based financial institutions and areas relating to northern development. As regards the Quebec and Maritimes part of the question, the policies we put forward for Quebec, for instance, included full participation in federalism rather than two nations as put forward by the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 14, 1973
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may not be able to bring himself more up to date than five years ago, but will he now advise the House whether the government is willing to condemn the west to no more effective policies than it produced for Quebec and the Maritimes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I really doubt that supple-mentaries to this question can be asked, but the Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. Catharines and then the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by him, will he please tell the House the policy of the Liberal government in respect of that most important question, capital punishment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question obviously is not in order.


J. Trevor Morgan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The right hon. Prime Minister in a recent statement derided members on this side of the House for not having a policy on capital punishment, thereby implying that the Liberal government did have such a policy. Otherwise, what he said was nothing more than a verbal diatribe or verbal diarrhoea.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope that the right hon. Prime Minister would not want to reply to that question. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wanted to ask a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would first indicate why he rises on a point of order. If he simply wishes to ask a supplementary question, that is not a point of order.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising because I was denied the right to ask a supplementary question, and I think that you will agree I do not abuse the rules of the House. I rise to suggest that the Prime Minister's reply to the question of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings is derogatory of the position of all western Members of Parliament in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I say that because for many years we have been expressing the viewpoints of western Canada, and in this respect the Prime Minister does not have to consult anybody outside this chamber. The western members have conscientiously-


An hon. Member:: You know it all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Do you represent the NDP government of Manitoba?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the willingness of the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Do you represent the NDP government of British Columbia?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the willingness of hon. members in the Liberal party to listen to the views of the west is demonstrated by their unwillingness to listen to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is willing to listen to the hon. member but perhaps he should indicate his point of order as quickly as possible. We have spent a great deal of time on points of order or questions of privilege since the beginning of the question period.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I agree, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I agree that you are always ready to listen and certainly do your best to control-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on! Sit down!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Certainly you do your best to control the noise from the government benches. My point of order is specifically this. Is not the Prime Minister's appeal to the west, stating that he will give the west a better deal, more accurately described as a better deal for the Liberal party in western Canada?


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the hon. member would want me to rule on whether that is a point of order. I feel that hon. members should attempt to make the question period somewhat more significant by giving other hon. members an opportunity to ask questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROSECUTION OF COMPANIES WHOSE PRODUCTS FAILED TO MEET QUAD PROGRAM TESTS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising from the statement he made yesterday in which he pointed out that 48 drugs tested under the QUAD program of his department failed to meet those tests, which means in fact they are illegal under the food and drug regulations. I should like to know why the companies that produce those drugs are not being prosecuted?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister ol National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the importance or the significance of the failures in these various cases, but 1 can assure the hon. member that, where failures are significant, prosecutions will be instituted.

March 14, 1973


David Orlikow: Will the minister favourably consider making a statement in the House listing the drugs that failed to meet these quality tests and the companies that produced them?


Marc Lalonde: I will certainly look into this matter, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.


An hon. Member:: Now we hear from the leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: They are sorry they ever dropped you.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question that is of interest in all parts of Canada. It has to do with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I ask the minister who reports for that corporation why the CBC has introduced a new policy of reducing news and public affairs coverage out of Ottawa? What is the reason for the change? Why has the program, "Encounter", been cut in half so far as time is concerned? Will he find out the reason for this action? Is it, as suggested by the incomparable Sheila McCook in her column, the centralization by the CBC, in so far as English broadcasting of public affairs is concerned, in the city of Toronto rather than the city of Ottawa in which national news is made?


Hon. lames Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to find out the answer to that question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the minister also find out whether the purpose of this is to avoid focusing attention on the weaknesses of the present government?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the present high rate of unemployment in Nova Scotia, will the minister reactivate and review his deferred file on public works in my riding, some of which have been deferred since 1969, so that necessary repairs to wharves, skidways and breakwaters will provide useable
Oral Questions
facilities for our fishermen while providing much needed employment for our people?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might be surprised to learn that I agree with him. We will have to do much more to bring these wharves up to acceptable standards. We are addressing ourselves to this at the present time, but we will need more funds to do the job well.


George Harris Hees: You are beginning to get the message.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact he has implemented six of the recommendations of the Barber commission on farm machinery prices, will he now inform the House what effect this has had on the prices of farm machinery to date?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are constantly studying the prices of farm machinery. I would be wrong if I said our studies are finished. We are still following up some of them and have met as late as a week ago with some of the people who have indicated a desire to export farm machinery to Canada.


Paul Yewchuk: Since there has been no significant reduction in the price of farm machinery as a result of these measures, is the minister considering the implementation of the other recommendation which suggests the imposition of a reverse dumping duty?


Eugene Whelan: This has been discussed, Mr. Speaker, but the whole thing is that on most of this farm machinery, practically all of it, there are no duties or tariffs. It is a free market, and we hope it will be used as such.



FARM MACHINERY-STUDY OF PROPOSED SASKATCHEWAN LEGISLATION RESPECTING SPARE PARTS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has studied the legislation being proposed in the province of Saskatchewan to deal with the adequate supply of repair parts, and is he ready to give his full co-operation to that province in order to meet the needs of the farmers?


Eugene Whelan: I certainly have seen the legislation that is being prepared by the province of Saskatchewan, but to say I have analysed it completely at this stage would be wrong. We are hoping to go over it further to see whether it is worthy of our assistance.

March 14, 1973
Oral Questions FLOODS



LAKES ONTARIO AND ERIE-PROGRAMS PROPOSED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVINCE FOR BUILDING PROTECTIVE WORKS OR COMPENSATION

Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Will he indicate to the House specifically what programs were proposed by his department to the government of Ontario either for building protective works or for providing funds for the compensation of those people who suffer flood damage on the Lake Ontario and Lake Erie shorelines this year, to which he referred in reply to a question last week or the week before?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, when the Ontario ministers were here in Ottawa about ten days ago I described two programs that are in effect in other provinces. One is longterm planning for protective works and the other involves compensation after the event of flooding. Both these programs are in the public area so far as informal information is concerned.


Terrence Wyly Grier: May I ask the minister whether it would be fair to infer from that reply that his department has no plans to deal with the short-run situation this winter and spring?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, property basically is a matter for the province and unless the province has plans it is very difficult for the federal government to help deal with that problem in respect of property.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Has he met with, or does he intend to meet with, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Keith Spicer, to discuss the recommendations made in his last report, and what does he intend to do about these recommendations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, the report is addressed to all Members of Parliament as such, and not just to the government. As the hon. member knows, Mr. Spicer is answerable to parliament and not to the government.
I attempt, Mr. Speaker, to meet all senior governmental and parliamentary officials, and I meet with them from time to time. I have not seen Mr. Spicer recently, but I met him several months ago.


René Matte: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Prime Minister say whether he will be introducing in this session a motion or bill that will give us the opportunity to discuss the bilingualism question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows from the Speech from the Throne that the government

intends to bring before the House the question of bilingualism in the civil service. We expect to be putting something on the order paper within two weeks at the latest, that will provide the House with information, and we hope that all members will wish to take part in the debate. [English]



GRANTING OF FUNDS TO SCHOOL BOARDS IN OTTAWA AREA-INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT

Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. In view of the continuing interest in obtaining federal funding in the secondary and primary school systems in the national capital area, and in view of negotiations which we understand the Secretary of State has been carrying on with the province, would the minister inform the House whether he will be making an announcement tomorrow or within the next few days with regard to the granting of funds to the school boards within the national capital area?


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hope to be making an announcement along those lines fairly shortly.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the encouragement given Canadians by the expensive advertising program sponsored by his department to call a Zenith number at the department for free tax advice, can the minister confirm to the House that his department will be bound by the advice given to Canadian taxpayers who seek such advice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have serious doubts whether the question is in order. Perhaps I might give the member the benefit of my doubts and allow the minister to reply, if he can do so, briefly.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: think Your Honour undoubtedly has in mind that I am not permitted to give a legal opinion in the House.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think this is a very important question to all Canadians because of the fact that it is tax time. Surely Canadians must be made aware of whether or not this advice can be taken as good advice and whether the department is bound by it. I think this is a very legitimate question which the minister should answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Every member who asks a question, of course, may feel he should receive one answer rather than another or that he is entitled to an answer, but according to the rules and practice the minister does not have to answer, as the hon. member knows.
March 14, 1973

Privilege


Peter Colwell Bawden: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will allow the supplementary after which he will call orders of the day. I apologize to other hon. members who have not been given an opportunity to ask questions. Perhaps the Chair might recognize the Leader of the Opposition after the supplementary and before calling orders of the day.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, in that officials of the department are saying on the telephone that they will not be bound by the advice they are giving, will the minister inform himself and advise the House on the subject and also undertake to be honest with Canadians by making clear in the advertisements that the department will not stand behind the advice given?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is not in order.



FINANCE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask him once again a question which he took under advisement. Is he now prepared to give the House a breakdown of the figure of $2 billion in cash requirements that he has projected for the next fiscal year?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will see whether I can get that in the form asked for by the Leader of the Opposition. I apologize to him. I have been unable to assemble that in the last week.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had a question on the order paper for nearly a month to which I have received an answer from the Secretary of State. My question was:
1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of the Secretary of State on (a) January 1, 1963 (b) January 1, 1973?
2.	How many people in each of these years were receiving salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) over $20,000?
I am surprised at the answer I received from the minister. He gave the number of employees he had during this period but he cannot supply the salaries. I think this is a very simple question and I would appreciate a full answer. He can give it for 1963 but he cannot give it for 1973.



PRIVILEGE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege and I raise this point under Standing Order 17(1) which says that whenever any matter of privilege arises it shall be taken into consideration immediately. There is a second paragraph to Standing Order 17 which requires an hour's notice, unless the point of privilege relates to something that arose during the course of the sitting. The point on which I rise is something that did arise during the course of the sitting this afternoon. Indeed, it came up during the question period, but I felt that it was not proper to take time out of the question period by raising a point of privilege then, so I waited until the question period was over.
I realize that Your Honour has spent many hours pouring over the question of privilege, and we frequently have quoted to us the citation which says that members raise many points which really are not points of privilege. But I submit that in Beauchesne there is a clear statement that insults to members are to be regarded as a matter of privilege. I feel, Sir, that the House has been insulted todav by statements made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) in answer to questions that were put to him. Yesterday, in answer to questions, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration very clearly said that the directives that were under discussion had been dispatched to the directors general of the manpower offices, and that they were to be taken in context with other regulations and other manuals or instructions. He also said that those directives were to be related to the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
This was not a chance, off-the-cuff, remark. It was clear yesterday, in the words of the minister, that the priorities that we had discussed related to manpower offices in giving priority to certain persons for available jobs. Today, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration says that some kind of a misunderstanding occurred last December, not between yesterday and today, but as of last December there was a misunderstanding and that all of this had to do with LIP grants.
I submit that it is pretty close to an insult to the House to ask us to believe today that he knew last December that these priorities related to LIP grants, whereas yesterday the minister clearly said that they related to the operations of the manpower offices. The minister made it clear yesterday that these directives had not been secret, and he said that they were to be taken into account after the normal operations required by the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I am not arguing whether the use of these directives was as bad as was made out in the House yesterday, but I do think it is an insult to the House to tell us one day that these matters related to the manpower offices and the next day that since last December the minister knew that they related to the granting of moneys under LIP. Therefore, I feel that the matter should be considered. I believe the minister, himself, should have a much better oppor-
2216

March 14, 1973
Privilege
tunity than he has in the question period to deal with it and that the place for him to deal with this matter so that it can be examined and so that he can give a full explanation, would be in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. I might point out also that he could and should bring with him before this committee his officers so that we can examine them as well and get the whole matter straightened out.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am well aware how seldom, since you have been in the chair, you have found a question of privilege to be a legitimate one. As you often say, a point or privilege is usually a matter of debate. This is not a matter of debate between us and the minister; it is a matter of debate between the minister yesterday and the minister today, if it is a matter of debate at all. At any rate, because I think it is an insult to the House that ought to be cleared up I would be prepared, if Your Honour feels I do have a question of privilege, to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the statements made today by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to the effect that the priorities referred to yesterday related to LIP grants, which contradicts his statement of yesterday that these same priorities had been despatched to the directors general of the manpower offices to be taken in context with other regulations and also in relation to the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for full examination.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair, of course, has no intention of allowing a debate on this matter, unless I rule there is a question of privilege. I will allow the minister to respond, if he wishes to do so, after which I will make a ruling because, in any event, that is a well established practice. In view of the fact that the minister has been referred to in the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and in view of the fact that the minister's conduct has been impugned by the hon. member, I will allow the minister to speak briefly, after which I will make a ruling on whether, in my view, there is or there is not a question of privilege.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments cause me to rise and inform the House that what I was trying to convey today was simply this. Last December, when we announced the extension and augmentation of the funds for LIP we clearly enunciated the criteria that had been established before but which we repeated for emphasis, that particularly this year LIP employees would have to be drawn, as a condition of approval of the project, from manpower offices and that in fact the manpower officers would give priority first to those people who were on unemployment insurance rolls at that time, and second, to those who were on social welfare. Thereafter, the vacancies in LIP would be filled from other sources.
The other day, in discussion with the deputy minister- we were reviewing the progress of LIP now that nearly all projects approvals have been sent out-and we discussed whether this should be reconfirmed. I did not see the dispatch that went out on Friday at that time. I am telling the House that yesterday, rightly or wrongly, I was under the impression that we were mainly referring to LIP-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Knight Andras: I am telling the House that I had some doubts about that overnight, and I am saying that I am reviewing that with the deputy minister this afternoon. But there was no reference to December or a change in the program or a change in the regulations. The reference to the Unemployment Insurance Act came up because some hon. members opposite, I believe, suggested that this was in contravention of the Unemployment Insurance Act, on which perhaps I am not competent to give a legal opinion, but which I do not believe to be the case.
Certainly, the fact that we have given priority in LIP hirings to people from the unemployment insurance rolls has or should have been known for some time. I think my friend, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) will confirm that before he left this ministry he also, had indicated that for 1972-73 that priority would be established for LIP. Other matters have been brought into it, and this is what I wanted to check because that was the basis on which I thought we were talking yesterday. But when I look back I realize there was some error.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot speak on the same question of privilege. He may have his own question of privilege. I think we should try to follow the long-established practice that there should not be a debate on an alleged, or a proposed, or suggested question of privilege because we will defeat the whole practice of privilege if there is a debate even before a finding is made that there is a prima facie case. I think I can say immediately that I cannot find that there is a prima facie case of privilege that ought to be referred to the committee, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and this for a number of reasons.
I think I still have to refer hon. members to citation 113 in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition which states that:
-a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
I feel that on the basis of this citation, it would be very difficult to agree that there is a question of privilege.
With respect to the other matters, what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is doing, according to my understanding, is suggesting that a committee should investigate the veracity, or honesty, or integrity of another hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; his
consistency.


Mr. Speaker:: That is the way I interpret the hon. member's motion; otherwise, I do not see why there should be a motion at all. It is a well known practice, confirmed by a number of rulings, including particularly an often quoted ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener, that the conduct of a member cannot be impugned without a charge being laid in the usual way, which charge being laid against a member is investigated by the Committee on Privileges and Elections, with consequences which are well known
March 14, 1973

to members if the charges made are not substantiated following study by the committee.
I would think that if what the hon. member has in mind is to investigate a certain discrepancy, or to find out exactly what went on within a department, then it becomes simply an ordinary substantive motion which cannot be proposed to the House without the necessary 48 hours notice. On that basis, I would not think the motion could be put at this time. The hon. member may want to try to move it under Standing Order 43, and to get the unanimous consent of the House that it be put, but the hon. member's reaction to that suggestion indicates that he does not think he would get unanimous consent.
For these reasons, and perhaps others which could come to mind or be suggested by other hon. members, I would not think the Chair would be justified in finding that there is a prima facie case of privilege so that the statements made by the minister, or his conduct, be looked into by a committee, or so that they might be looked into by the particular committee to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has referred. Therefore, I find that there is not a prima facie case of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I respect Your Honour's ruling on the question of privilege, and the detail that Your Honour has gone into in responding to the eminent member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I want to rise on a point of order dealing with Standing Order 41(2) which concerns the tabling of documents referred to in the House. Perhaps to facilitate the House and clarify the whole matter, it might be suggested that we could revert to motions-perhaps there is even a necessity that we do so-in order that the minister may table the document of October, which I understand deals with the previous situation, and the memorandum to which he has referred relating to the December decisions of the department.
Obviously, Your Honour, by the Prime Minister's own admission two sets of directives have been sent out. I think this should be brought to the attention of the House, and under Standing Order 41(2) we should move the documents tabled.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is clear that the minister was either wrong yesterday or wrong today, in what he said to the House. And I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the least he ought to do in order to clarify the situation in this House, and for the unemployed people as well as for his own officers, is to undertake to make a full statement on motions tomorrow. He could then present the document and a full explanation, so that members of other parties may be able to comment on it. If he has nothing to hide, that is obviously what he ought to do. He ought to tell parliament where he was wrong and what mistake was made.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, so far as my memory serves me now, I think I have laid bare my soul to the maximum degree that the facts would indicate. I will be quite prepared to examine the blues after this day's proceedings are printed to see if there is anything further I could add that would be useful. I have no objection to adhering to the hon. member's suggestion, but so far as I know right
Privilege
now there are no new facts to place before the House. I will examine the situation after I see Hansard.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Lundrigan). He sought unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions so that the minister may have an opportunity, unless of course he has something to hide, to table the document in the House under Standing Order 41(2).


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will inquire is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I have asked- whether there is unanimous consent, and there is not. I just wonder whether there is any point in pursuing this at this juncture. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) rises on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This will be a very short point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the predicament of the minister arose from questions directed from this side of the House, including myself, and in view of the fact that what he said yesterday was certainly in direct contravention of what he had to say today with respect to the directive, I can see no reason, if the directive is wrong, why the minister in all good conscience cannot withdraw it now. He does not need any further discussion. He does not need to look at this matter further.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This is my point of order. We are trying to clear up a very serious matter, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this cannot be a point of order. He is asking the minister to table a document and to make a statement. That cannot be done at this time. We have gone beyond the question period. We should be calling orders of the day. The hon. member is rising on a point of order, and I respectfully suggest to him that it is not a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it is very seldom a member's intention to abuse the Chair, but I think the whole country is left in a very precarious position. The minister appeared on television, and he made statements. He attempted to clarify his answer to my question yesterday. There is no doubt that nothing was mentioned about LIP. In order to show some sincerity, the least he can do right now is to say here and now that he withdraws that directive, and then we can start from scratch again.


Mr. Harney:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask you to enlighten me on the question that the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) concerning the recommendations in the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
25789-68*

March 14, 1973
Privilege
The Prime Minister made it quite clear that he was not responsible for the report, but that it was submitted to the House.
I should therefore like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, when and where we will be able to discuss the report.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that I am unable to inform the hon. member. He cannot address questions to the Chair, even on the terms he suggested.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in view of my background, I certainly should not rise when it comes to procedural matters-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: -and I acknowledge that. I do not have the background in procedure that members such as my House leader, the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton and other hon. gentlemen have, but I have been in this House when there were arguments about the tabling of documents to which reference had been made, and I have seen the rules. Your Honour can research this, although I am sure you do not need to, since you are quite aware of the rules. My understanding is that once documents are referred to in the House of Commons there is an obligation on the part of the minister or the concerned that they be tabled.
There has been a reference to October documents, December documents-we have had a general reference to all of the directives that have gone out of the manpower offices indicating the priorities for hiring. I contend, Your Honour, that under the rules of the House it is mandatory that the minister table these documents. This would help clear up the matter, and it would place the minister in a position where he could clear up the misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) who opted to be the scapegoat today. I think it is obligatory and mandatory under the rules of the House that the minister table these documents.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot agree with the interpretation of the rules given by the hon. member. It is well known that if public documents are cited in debate, according to the usual rules of evidence known to members of the bar, the member citing them is required to table at least that part of the document used in debate. This is not a Standing Order but simply a practice. To that extent I would not agree with the hon. member's interpretation of the practice of the House.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie that Bill C-3 to amend the Export Development Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that today I am experiencing some throat trouble, so if I speak in a very low key this afternoon I hope hon. members will understand.
Last Friday afternoon, in the three or four minutes before the adjournment, I had an opportunity to make a few remarks on the Export Development Act and the amendments which are before the House in the form of Bill C-3. I should like to take two or three minutes now to summarize what I said at that time. The purpose of the amendments is relatively simple, that is, to increase the share capital of the Export Development Corporation from $75 million to $125 million and to increase the ceiling on loans and guarantees from $800 million annually to $1.5 billion.
On the surface, these amendments seem rather straightforward but I raised a couple of issues last Friday and I want to talk about them further this afternoon. The main purpose of the Export Development Corporation, other than lending money to foreign companies or foreign countries to purchase equipment and supplies in Canada, is to insure Canadian firms against non-payment for exports by foreign buyers and to insure Canadian foreign investors when they invest in other countries. This type of insurance only takes effect when a private commercial company will not risk insuring a corporation.
I feel that the bill before us is oriented too much toward big business, the multinational corporation. If you look at the type of credits that have been extended by the Export Development Corporation over the last few years, you will find that most of the financial arrangements for insurance and so on have been with the huge multinational companies, many of which are controlled by Americans.
I pointed out the other day that there is a strange involvement between big government and big business, and this is borne out when you look at the board of directors. The chairman of the board of directors of the Export Development Corporation is Mr. J. F. Grandy, Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Also a member of the board is Mr. T. M. Burns, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister; Mr. G. K. Bouey, Governor of the Bank of Canada; Mr. P. Gerin-Lajoie, President of the Canadian International Development Agency and that progressive figure, Mr. S. S. Reisman, Deputy Minister of Finance; Mr. A. E. Ritchie, Under Secretary of State for External Affairs and so on. On the private sector side, we see four business representatives on the board of directors of the EDC-Mr. Paul Leman, President of the Aluminum Company of Canada; Mr. I. S. Ross, President,
March 14, 1973

Swan Wooster Engineering Company, Limited of Vancouver; Mr. R. D. Southern, President of Atco Industries, Limited of Alberta and Mr. A. H. Zimmerman, Vice-President of Noranda Mines.
There seems to be a very interesting correlation here between big business and the government bureaucrats and mandarins, and some very interesting things have developed as a result of this strange, or perhaps not so strange, alliance. We find for example that Mr. Paul Leman, President of the Aluminum Company of Canada, was appointed to the board of directors in October, 1969. Perhaps there is a conflict of interest, Mr. Speaker, between his activities and one of the credits given by EDC. The minister might like to comment on that later. Mr. Leman is still on the board of directors of EDC and page 24 of the 1970 annual report of the Export Development Corporation shows that a credit was given to his company. The country concerned was Argentina and the contract was signed on December 11, 1970; the amount of financing was $7,500,000. I would be interested to know whether the President of Alcan was at the meeting where this particular credit was approved and whether he was involved in the decision. If he was, Mr. Speaker, this is an obvious conflict of interest and I think the minister owes the House an explanation when he speaks later in this debate.
When I look at the names of the directors and consider the financing that has been arranged and the firms to which the money is going, I wonder whether the government takes all the risk with the taxpayers' money and the multinational corporations take none. This is not what I understand as a free enterprise system; this is the type of system which we sometimes call the system of socialism for the wealthy, for the large corporations. When these corporations go into the other countries they are assured that there is absolutely no risk; they know that they will be insured by the Export Development Corporation, which is funded by the taxpayers of this country. I consider this an area of serious concern. I believe that the Export Development Corporation should be oriented more towards small businesses than towards large business, as is the case at present. At present, before a company may qualify for assistance, the size of transactions involved must be substantial. That, I believe, must be changed. The Export Development Corporation should help small businesses of this country.
My second area of concern-I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, my voice has let me down and I cannot speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would like to rest for a minute or two, or somebody else can make a contribution, after which he could complete his speech. I think we ought to accommodate ourselves to the unusual difficulties he is experiencing. I will call on the hon. member for Oxford. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville may finish his speech later this afternoon.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, for a good many years we have heard successive ministers responsible for industry, trade and commerce in successive governments advocate in this House the expansion of our
Export Development Act
trading possibilities in South America. Also, a number of ministers responsible for trade, industry and commerce, including the previous minister, have taken trading missions to South America for that very purpose. This sort of thing went on during the tenure of the last two or three governments. Prior to that, this activity had been indulged in when the present hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) was minister of industry, trade and commerce. It is in that regard, and in that vein, that I wish to address my remarks.
Not only has it been our policy to expand trade in Latin America; it has also been, as it was in the days of the government formed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and subsequently, the policy of our government to try and promote goodwill and perhaps political expectations of one variety or another in Latin America. The government, so far as I have been able to observe, has tried to promote this policy. However, it is clear that loans and extensions of credit are not granted from a purely economic motivation, otherwise why would it make loans to Pakistan, where the experience has not been entirely satisfactory, to say the least. Clearly loans and credit are extended on political, not economic, motivation. It is clear to me, as has been admitted by functionaries in the EDC, that the government of Chile in Latin America is being discriminated against in this regard. I will give precise details in a few moments.
I should like to point out that in days gone by, when Cuba was taken over by a new government by force of arms, the government of the day in this country did not discriminate against that government. I can well remember this because I happened to be parliamentary secretary to the then minister of industry, trade and commerce. It was made public recently by the late Mr. A. D. P. Heeney that great pressure was placed on the Canadian government at that time not to trade with Cuba. My colleague, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, has confirmed this to me. Nevertheless, Canada did not succumb to that pressure not to trade in strategic materials with the government of Cuba. Whenever the Cubans wished to buy anything, and whenever circumstances permitted credit being extended, they were accommodated. It is my understanding that the government of the United States had a great deal more respect for the government of Canada after it had stood up to pressure than was the case previously. This policy worked well.
It is well known that the present government of Chile is an extreme left-wing government, headed by Prime Minister Salvador Allende. He, at least, achieved his position after being democratically elected, which was not the case in the Cuban situation. It is equally well known that the government of the United States is a little unhappy about the government of Chile, and has exerted pressure in one way or another to try to do what it can to make the government of Chile somewhat less popular than it has been in the past. I would be surprised if the government of the United States has not attempted to put pressure on the government of this country, through the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), and asked us to restrict credit to Chile. The reason is obvious. There are two industries in Chile which can provide foreign exchange. One is the copper industry, which is not in a healthy position, I gather; the other natural resource

March 14, 1973
Export Development Act
industry is the forest products industry. According to information at my disposal, some of those natural resources are now ready for harvesting and can provide foreign exchange for Chile.
It is equally clear that the government of Chile is in a difficult foreign exchange position and has difficulty paying loans. I think the record of the country's trading with Canada has always been very good in the past. However, apparently it is the desire of the Canadian government not to extend credit to Chile because of that country's currency difficulties and also, I suspect, as I have already mentioned, for other reasons. Apparently this government's motivation, at least in part may arise from wisnmg to einoarrass the government of Chile because of its political leanings. Apparently this is government policy, and I hope the minister will make some reply in this regard. I cannot see how this policy would please those in this House who sit to my left, and who are the allies of this government. I would not think it would be to their liking at all.
The illustration I have in mind concerns a rather large firm in the city of Woodstock, Ontario, known as Timber Jack. This firms deals in logging equipment, that is, in log rolling equipment, and enjoys extensive sales all over the world. In the past many of these sales have been financed in one way or another by the EDC. Last year the government of Chile presented this firm, Timber Jack, which is the subsidiary of a multinational corporation, Eaton, Yale and Towne, with the opportunity to bid on a $4 million order for certain timber skidders and logging skidders. Conversations had gone on with the EDC concerning financing. This happened some months before tenders were invited on the order. When the people of Timber Jack talked with the people of EDC, it was apparent that EDC was agreeable to making the loan. As I say, this took place some months before the final decision was made with respect to tendering.
In any event, when the final chance came forward to make the tender, EDC turned the financing down. The terms, roughly, were 10 per cent cash down, which Chile was quite prepared to pay, and the rest was to be paid off over a relatively short period in equal monthly installments. In our previous experience in dealing with Chile, the financial obligations that Chile had incurred were always paid on the line. I was requested by the company concerned to find out what I could concerning this failure to help in the financing of this project. I discussed the matter with officials of EDC and was informed that they were acting in accordance with government policy not to extend loans to Chile at present. Apparently this has been not only the policy of this government, but of other governments as well. They did not specify which ones. Consequently, the order was turned down.
In addition to the fact that an industry in my city lost a $4 million contract because of this attitude and the subsequent loss of employment, all of which is important, there is the more important fact of our future trading relations with Latin America. In this particular instance, I understand that Brazil in fact financed a subsidiary company of Eaton, Yale and Towne which makes somewhat similar equipment. In any event, I do not think that Chile was

done out of the equipment. It might just as well have come from Canada. For a long time companies in this country, multinational corporations or otherwise, have tried to provide good service to Latin American countries on commercial orders. It is my view that this may well affect Canada's image in the Andean pact countries of South America in general.
It is quite true that if we refused to finance Chile in this case while Brazil did so, it will make suspect our future negotiations concerning trade not only with Chile but perhaps other Latin American countries as well. Chile is a business risk. It is certainly an investment risk. However, Canada can well afford to look to the future by taking some commercial risk transactions. I am sure the minister knows that in the past the EDC has taken certain risks. While they have not worked out as successfully as hoped, I do not think that anyone objected because Canada's long range policy and political policy, or perhaps I should say foreign policy, were perhaps served by making these risk loans.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, Canada has been trying for a long time to break into the Latin American market. It has also been our policy to promote good relations with Latin America. This sort of activity is hardly calculated to do that. In fact, it has the opposite effect. Our good neighbour to the south does not particularly care for the government of Chile for its own good reasons and expects us to follow suit by taking discriminatory action against Chile. That is indeed unwise. I hope the minister will be persuaded to feel this way. It is often said there is a price on everything and certain risks are too costly. In other words, the game may not be worth the candle. This in no way affects making loans in southeast Asia where there are doubtful expectations.
In future, if governments of a left wing stripe are not popular with a certain government, such as that of the United States, Canada should not discriminate against those countries on that ground, even if risks are involved. The long-term objective of this country, certainly in the interest of trade and foreign policies, should be that we form good relations with Latin America, even if certain risks are involved. I suppose if there were some serious crisis in Chile, such as the earthquake they have had recently, we would be glad to provide assistance. I suppose that is a different case because that assistance would be freely provided. In this case, some repayment is involved.
The two policies seem thoroughly inconsistent. I hope the minister will encourage his colleagues in cabinet to reconsider their attitude with regard to trading with Chile, even though it may be against undoubted American pressures. I realize that our friends to the south are in a pretty strong bargaining position now, in view of the fact the auto pact is coming up for renegotiation. I hope the minister will give us a reply in this regard.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for the fine gesture of allowing me to continue my remarks. I really should not continue at this time. My voice gave out before, and it will probably do so again. However, I have one or two concluding sentences.
March 14, 1973

I was going to raise the issue of the concern about multinational foreign investment in the developing countries in the third world, and the fact that we encourage it in this country. Many of these countries are now interested in controlling their own economy. This is one question this House should seriously consider when discussing the bill before us today. For example, 86 per cent of the insured investment goes into developing nations according to the annual report that is before us at this time. With that, I wish to close my remarks and leave some comments about this aspect of the Export Development Corporation to the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Laprairie.


Mr. Watson:: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I was just sitting down. I had not yet reached my seat.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, when I look at the bill before us, I think the program, undertaken in the past several years by the Export Development Corporation, could make us wonder whether this bill should be under the aegis of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) because there are certain features of the EDC that suggest it is a "gravy train". It lends money to customers of Canadian corporations, but so often these are the big corporations. It insures Canadian corporations against non-payment by foreign producers, but so often these are the big corporations. It guarantees financial institutions against loss when they lend to corporations that may get into trouble overseas, but so often these are the big ones.
As of December 31, 1972, eight Canadian corporations shared 50 per cent of the benefits in EDC. If the outstanding offers that are before the corporations are accepted, the big eight share can go up to 64.8 per cent. This means that almost two-thirds of the money available for assistance to expand Canadian exports is being monopolized by eight major concerns. We ought not to jump to the conclusion that this, in itself, is bad. Bigness is not necessarily good, but it is not necessarily wrong either. None of us want to go as far as the former president of General Motors in the United States who said that he thought what was good for General Motors was good for the United States. I do not think we are inclined to go to that extreme and think that whatever is good for the "Big Eight" is also good for Canada. Neither do we want to draw the opposite conclusion that anything that is done to assist these corporations to develop and carry on business is necessarily bad for the people of Canada. We recognize that they employ Canadians and are putting something important into the economy for the development of this country. None the less, we should not jump to the other conclusion that we are giving the Canadian people the best assistance we can when we are giving this kind of encouragement to the major industrial corporations in Canada.
There are at least two points of criticism that can be offered under this heading. One fault with the way in which the finances of the EDC are being distributed is the way in which they involve an imbalance among the provinces of Canada. Five of the big eight are from one province and three are from another. We must give much more recognition to the need for a better distribution of finan-
Export Development Act
cial resources of EDC across the country in order to encourage the development of exporting industries in other parts of Canada.
However, we must give consideration as well to the way small businesses in Canada are being affected by the actions of EDC and its regulations under which a project must normally involve a minimum of $1 million. This reduces the chances of a small business enterprise getting into the export market with the help of the EDC. I think that parliament ought to give more consideration to improvements to EDC programs that would give priority to small businesses in this country. We are not questioning the principle of the EDC and we are not calling into question the fact that the EDC should be free to assist major exporters in the country, but we would like to see a re-examination of the priorities of EDC so that greater advantage can be given to small businesses, enabling them to develop the export dimension of their programs they have not been able to undertake.
So, we would ask that the minister in charge of this corporation, and the government generally, give consideration to this kind of critical question: Is sufficient publicity provided to small businesses describing the services available from the Export Development Corporation? It has been my experience in dealing with small businesses that very often those in charge are not always aware of the programs the government makes available. Very often they are quite uninformed about projects and programs the government has undertaken because these have not been fully explained. It would be of interest to the country if the department responsible for the EDC undertook a more energetic effort to reach out to small businesses in Canada to enlighten these people in order that they might participate in the export markets of the world with assistance from the EDC.
Second, I would ask this critical question: Is it the policy of the Export Development Corporation to avoid transactions which would, by the very nature of small businesses, discourage the use of its services? I can appreciate that it is often more simple for the EDC and other government agencies to deal with well-staffed and highly sophisticated corporations which operate on the level of government departments. We hear and witness all around us big government, and we can appreciate that big government is very much in tune with big business. What we would like to see is a conscious and sincere effort by the EDC to take cognizance of the small business firm and employer, reaching out to encourage him to become active in the export market.
Third, we would ask whether it is a policy of the government or that of the EDC that the small business corporation should be forced to go to the private lending institutions? One of the major problems faced by small business today is the lack of adequate capital. Anyone who deals with small businessmen today knows they are constantly challenged by the problem of finding enough capital with which to equip themselves and expand their markets. Very often they have visions of new markets they can penetrate. They have the energy and initiative with which to do so, but they lack equipment and staff because they lack capital. What they need is a positive, creative and

March 14, 1973
Export Development Act
sincere effort by the government to assist them finding what they need most, and that is capital financing. If the EDC and the government of this country intend to help small business in Canada in the way required, they will have to do something such as this. They must consider establishing a branch of the EDC which will have as its prime concern and responsibility the provision and promotion of services to small businesses. If the government undertook this it would not only assist these businesses, but would go a long way toward meeting at least part of the unemployment problem in this country.
We are aware that one of the features of business life today is that small business tends to be labour intensive, to a much greater degree than big corporations which often can afford equipment that actually reduces the number of jobs provided in the past. If we want to increase jobs we have to increase the number of small businesses.
Even more important, we have to help small businesses to stay alive. It is often said that the greatest bankruptcy rate in business today occurs among the small entrepreneurs. This is because they lack adequate capital and other means of staying in business. That is why we want to put emphasis on the needs of some of the finest people in this country; people who are making a noteworthy contribution to their communities. They should receive much more in the way of incentives and support from the government than they have to date.
Such a small business branch of the EDC could assist and make efforts to improve the balance of payments position of Canada, because we would find small businesses participating in the export market, resulting in much greater diversification of products for overseas export. We are all conscious of the difficulties Canada has suffered for a long time because so much of our export trade has been directed to one country. The vast majority of our export products are going to the United States, and we must certainly diversify in terms of our customer countries. To do that we must look for new markets and develop new products available for export in a fashion that has not been followed in the past.
We plead with the government to think very seriously about the possibility of making a creative contribution to the economic expansion of this country by assisting that part of the economy which has for a long time lagged in export opportunities. Small business requires considerable assistance in this regard because a great deal of our difficulty in the export market relates to competition with other countries which have cheaper labour resources. We must assist small business to find ways to develop competitive programs rather than cheap labour resources. We must assist them to find better competitive methods in terms of improved efficiency of operation, improved products and greater quality in order that they will be more competitive. We cannot hope to accomplish this in terms of lower labour costs.
If small businesses are to make this kind of advance they will need the co-operation of the government, not the kind of handouts from Ottawa in the last few years which have gone to others as welfare help. We all believe that those who help themselves should be helped by others, and this is what we are asking for in this instance. We

believe in assistance to the small businessman who, with a limited operation, must undertake most of the administration and management on his own. He cannot afford the research departments or the promotional efforts or the great sales forces available to big business. That kind of person needs the help of the government to give him a chance to stay alive in our economy. So, we urge^ the government to make this a priority.
We should recognize that intentionally or not our smaller operations in Canada have suffered from a lack of available financial resources. I have already referred to their difficulty in finding adequate capital. For example, in 1964 the Royal Commission on Banking and Finance reported that one-third of Canadian-controlled companies with assets of under a million dollars had inadequate supplies of long term capital. This is still the case and unless we resolve the problem in a positive way an increasing number of small businesses will be obliged to quit their operations. They will be forced to sell out to big corporations and, as hon. members know, those big corporations are often subsidiaries or agents of multinational corporations. When we speak about the future of Canada, we cannot be serious when we talk about repatriating the economy unless we are serious about helping Canadian-owned small business institutions.
I would like to turn, now, Mr. Speaker, to another dimension of this topic. I wish to refer to the way in which the EDC has, in my opinion, not only an economic responsibility but a social responsibility to help the have-not peoples of the world to help themselves. I think the minister, in his opening address to this debate, conveyed the impression that the EDC finds some of its justification in doing just that. I agree with what he says. I think we should be impressed by many of the things that the EDC has made possible. It has enabled Canadians to sell to have-not countries equipment which has enabled them to develop their resources. We certainly agree with the EDC carrying out that kind of program. But, at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why he omitted to mention that the EDC was involved in the erection of a luxury hotel in the Caribbean.
I do not quite see how this fits in with the social aims of the Export Development Corporation. The ordinary taxpayers in Canada certainly cannot afford to go to this luxury hotel; the ordinary citizen in the Caribbean certainly cannot afford to do anything but work in that kind of institution. We must therefore wonder whether this is the best way to utilize the money being made available by the taxpayers of Canada to meet the needs of the ordinary citizens in Caribbean countries or elsewhere in the world. With regard to the particular enterprise to which I have just referred, I should like to know just how much Canadian content was involved. We read in the regulations of the EDC that the projects financed by EDC must contain 80 per cent Canadian content. Well, perhaps 80 per cent of the materials used in that hotel came from Canada. But it would certainly be interesting to learn whether that was so.
Another question I feel I must ask is why this kind of aid should be provided to countries which do not appear to have an obvious need for such facilities. For instance, I
March 14, 1973

look at countries such as France, Argentine, Brazil, to name just a few, and I wonder why there is a special need for Canadians to help finance their imports from this country. Perhaps there is a good answer to that, but it is not obvious and I think we should be concerned about not only the imbalance in the distribution of the funds of the corporation, chiefly among eight corporations and two provinces, but also to the assistance provided to countries where the need is not as great as could be found elsewhere.
A fundamental question of principle which I should like to raise before the House is this: is the program of the EDC really the best way to help advance the Canadian economy? Should we not recognize that many more jobs would be created if we were to help small business enter the export market and assist them to do so by granting them the kind of loans which the EDC has shared among the big eight? For example, if we compare the operations of the Industrial Development Bank, which does assist many small businesses in Canada, with the record of the EDC we find that the Industrial Development Bank is making money available at a much higher rate of interest than the EDC makes available to the much larger corporations. The average interest rate charged by the Industrial Development Bank in 1972 was 9.86 per cent. The rate charged by the Export Development Corporation was only 7 per cent. We might also wonder about the size of loans which the Industrial Development Bank makes available to some of our smaller companies in contrast to the size of loans available to our major corporations. The average size of loans made by the Industrial Development Bank in 1972 was in the order of $5,000. Those made by the EDC were $23.3 million.
Look at this from another standpoint, Mr. Speaker. Should we be doing more for the Canadian people if we concentrated on creating jobs in Canada and providing services in Canada with the funds that are available to the EDC? I think we have often leaped to conclusions when making judgments about exports and when making judgments about aiding industry. It has been thought that if we provide fast write-offs and other concessions we would be bound to create jobs. We have thought that if we expended exports we would be bound to create jobs. But so frequently this is not the case.
It has been remarked that generals are usually best at fighting old wars. This is not to be wondered at when one considers that so much of their time is spent in military colleges studying old wars. They are trained, very often, to consider how they might have won this battle or that campaign. They are taught to identify the mistakes made by generals in the past, and so on. Is this not equally true of economists? Often we look back some years, sometimes a generation, to this economic theory or to that economic theory. We become so wedded to the principles enunciated by one economist or another, principles which for a time had validity, that we forget that other changes in the lifestyle of the world have made those theories outdated. I would therefore suggest that some very critical questions be asked about the effectiveness of EDC in contributing to the expansion of the number of jobs in Canada as well as to enriching the life of the Canadian people.
Export Development Act
The point at issue here is whether the money we make available to assist our export trade should be used just to permit our larger corporations to increase their record for any particular year. We ought to be dovetailing our export program in with our whole concern for solving unemployment, our whole concern for expanding the number of jobs available to the Canadian people, our whole concern for putting more purchasing power into the hands of the Canadian consumer. When we can provide a clear, firm and positive resolution of these concerns then there is full justification for the EDC program. Until this is the case, I think we must critically examine the whole proposition.
Very often the economic policies of the government remind me of a group of church women who went out selling tickets to a church supper. They were asked by a man to whom they tried to sell tickets: "Why do you want to sell tickets?" They told him they were putting on a church supper. "Why do you put on a church supper?" was his next question. "Well, we want to raise funds", they replied. To his inquiry as to why they wished to raise funds they said: "In order to pay for the hall we have built". "Why did you build the hall?" he asked. "In order to have a place in which to hold the supper".
There is a kind of circular uncritical assumption about many economic policies that are very much like that circular uncritical effort of those particular women. I think the time has come, not simply in respect of this one but many other major programs of the government, to ask to what extent these programs are making a major contribution to the achievement of Canada in reducing unemployment, giving people an opportunity to support themselves, and giving Canadian entrepreneurs and businessmen an opportunity to develop the resources of this country in conjunction with the working people of this country. If we were to ask that kind of question I think we might very well find that we would be doing more for the Canadian people were we to make some changes in the efforts of the EDC. We might very well find that if we put some federal money into the provision of better transit in some of the major population centres of the country we would do more to create jobs for Canadian people and provide services for the Canadian people than by shipping certain products across the sea.
We must ask ourselves what our priorities are. We must ask what the best way is to meet the human needs of the Canadian people. Then, we must ask whether the EDC is achieving this. Finally, I should like to call the attention of the House to the need for parliament, the government and this corporation, which is our under authority, to give greater help to Canadian-owned industries. One reason for helping small businesses is that very often they are Canadian-owned, certainly to a far greater degree than is the case among the major corporations. When we face the fact that EDC is giving priority to these major corporations many of which are foreign controlled and are subsidiaries then we must become increasingly critical because most of the capital of EDC is going in this direction. Of 43 firms which benefit from EDC, 21 are foreign-controlled. We are given the impression that this program is yet another way to really help this country be controlled

March 14, 1973
Export Development Act
and indeed owned by foreign interests, particularly United States interests.
Indeed, we must be increasingly concerned about the fact that EDC is another government agency that is feeding the expansion or dominance of the world by multinational corporations. In looking over the report of the EDC, one might wonder whether very often in its program it is financing one branch of a multionational corporation to buy from a Canadian branch of the same corporation. We must therefore have increasing concern about the way in which EDC, and along with it the private lending institutions of this country, should be required or at least encouraged to give greater priority to Canadian-owned companies.
When we talk about the repatriation of our country's economy we should be more concerned with that than we have been even about the repatriation of our constitution. We must recognize that very frequently government programs are contributing to the alienation of Canadian control. So, we ask again that the government re-examine the program of the Export Development Corporation with a view to giving priority in terms of financing and other aid to Canadian-owned institutions. It is not that we are suggesting they should not make assistance available to any firm that is operating within Canada and for the interest of Canada, but we would like a greater priority given to those companies which are 100 per cent Canadian.
For these reasons, we would call on the government to adjust its priorities. We would ask that it give greater priority to small businesses, to give greater priority to parts of the country which do not have sufficient industrial development, to give greater priority to labour intensive businesses which are seeking assistance and to give greater priority to Canadian-owned companies as well as to the social need abroad and the social need at home. When those priorities are taken seriously by the corporation and by the government then we certainly can be 100 per cent in support of the aims and objectives of the EDC. Until then, we must remain critical of it in the interest of the Canadian people.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate and to follow my distinguished and learned colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse), who I think has brought out a significant number of home truths when we consider this bill as being, as it is, part of the whole economic posture of the government and indeed the economic posture of our country. It is too bad, I suppose,- perhaps it is not really-that we are considering this bill only in the light of increasing the capital of the corporation because the problems which face us go far beyond the simplicity of the text of the statute. However, perhaps in some respects it is fortunate, if the present situation can be called fortunate, that we consider this matter on a day when we have had the release by Statistics Canada in respect of the actual rate of unemployment in our country which stands at the appalling level of 7.3 per cent of the work force, and wnen we realize tnat we are considering this bill at a time when there are 655,000 Canadians out of work.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) speaks of unemployment in human terms. I think the hearts of every

member on both sides of the House go out to those 655,000 people many of whom, perhaps most of whom are still, for some reason or another, unable to find jobs. When we speak about this bill in the context of the discussion in this House, and witness the apparent confusion in the Department of Manpower and Immigration, it is evident that the government takes no joy from this situation or from the fact that the unemployment rate is down ever so slightly. It certainly is nothing to write home to mother about. I am sure they take no joy-nor do we because we go further and condemn them-in respect of the economic policies which place our country and our young people in a position where they are potentially one of the groups with the highest unemployment level in the world among young people. I think this is very serious, having regard to what this means to them and their view of what our country could do for them.
I believe we are hampered to a great extent in judging the economic impact which this simple amendment will have by the fact that the Minister of Finance of this country, let alone the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), who has been stung by the mistakes of his 1972 budget and has repeated them again in his 1973 budget, still fails to tell us what projection he would make with regard to the generation of employment. It is difficult to consider this bill, which deals with the export affect on our economy, without knowing where the Minister of Finance stands.
This government chose to remain in office; it chose to cling to office or, as that sign says, to "hang in there, baby", or whatever you want to say. They had every constitutional right to do that, but in so doing-and I think there is a quid pro quo in this-there was to be an offering in return for the confidence of the House of some economic programs for the development and health of the economy of our country which would be of some real significance, but there have not been any. As we look at this bill today, one that is as important as this one with respect to the industrial development of our country, we find that there is still nothing significant in it.
Instead of this government coming to the House merely asking for an increase in the share capital of this corporation, I would rather have had the government come to the House to answer the questions that are on the lips of the army of unemployed in our country. I would like this government to give answers to those who have to support those unemployed. I would like the government to give real, substantial tax relief, and not be afraid to back it up by saying that this is where the tax relief will function in the economy and such will be the results. I would rather have had this government come before the House with policies of economic expansion, new policies on transportation, real help for pensioners, and perhaps the beginnings of justice for public servants. But instead, we are being asked to approve merely an increase in the share capital of an important corporation, and the minister has not given us any indication of how this fits into the whole economic package which the government wishes the Canadian people to believe it has. I think this is important.
March 14, 1973

The Export Development Corporation was formed in October of 1969 to help develop markets abroad for Canadian exporters. The concept was a good one and it is still a good one. I think it is essential for Canada to support the concept because Canada, for better or worse-and sometimes one wonders about that-is one of the world's great trading nations. I suggest to you, Sir, that much more is needed in this amendment than merely to increase the ceiling. I suggest to you that the whole concept of the bill must be looked at in depth. It may be that the ceiling which the government seeks to increase is not high enough and that a complete review of the operations of the corporation might be the answer. However, this debate will not supply that kind of review.
It may be that in the course of this review we would find out, not only that the amendment is deficient in terms of the amount of the increase requested, but that our whole approach to resource development must be reconsidered. It may very well be that our banking policy may also have to be reviewed. There is nothing here about that important aspect. It may be that our research and development policies should be reconsidered and I commend to members of the House the testimony of Dr. Schneider, chairman of the National Research Council, before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates a few days ago, with respect to the importance of research and development and whether it is being neglected, negligently or deliberately.
Perhaps out of such a review-and I wish we could have this review-we would come forward with some new policies with respect to transportation so that the patchwork quilt of policies which have been ours for so many years may be reshaped. Perhaps we could rethink and redirect the whole work of the Industrial Development Bank and its role in the scheme of things. I think this is possible. Probably we should take a good honest look for once and hear some honest comments from the government on the significance of the DISC program in the United States to see how it really affects us. I think that, in the course of that review, we would be able to look at our tariffs and we could come to grips with the whole sorry mess of foreign ownership and foreign investment in this country. In short, rather than applying another economic bandaid- and this is all this bill is-this review would have been much more meaningful to the House, for the government, and the Canadian people.
Some of my colleagues have spoken about small business. Canada has become dependent on one market which takes up about two thirds of our export trade. The bulk of our sales is in such primary fields as forest products, mining, oil and gas. If you look at the statistics, you will find that there is comparatively little in the manufacturing field other than the trade resulting from the auto pact. There is no doubt that large corporations dominate the export field. In 1970, 87 corporations with sales of over $25 million accounted for almost 70 per cent of Canadian export sales, and 426 exporters executed 92 per cent of the exports reported.
I think it is important that we note that the EDC provides financing for initial terms of 12 to 15 years at average interest rates of 7 per cent, and eight countries have received 59 per cent of the money, Mexico being the
Export Development Act
largest with $130 million. In the past year, the EDC concluded long-term, five to 15 year financing agreements with foreign buyers totalling $283 million. At the end of the year they had over $1 billion in outstanding long term contracts. As a result of these statistics and this evidence, weaknesses in the EDC's approach are now becoming apparent. Their activity appears-and I say this with great respect-to be encouraging rather than discouraging the concentration of our trade, particularly with respect to individual exporters. This is a decided weakness.
A review of this $1 billion financing reveals that 50 per cent of it benefited only eight Canadian exporters, four of whom are subsidiaries of American concerns. On average, these companies have received or are receiving $64 million each in export finance benefits. The largest is the Montreal Engineering Company Limited which has some $101 million in benefits. I am not suggesting that those things, by themselves, are wrong, but I am suggesting that the efforts, the energy and the funds have become too centralized in too small an area and that many Canadian small businesses and the potential of small businesses have been ignored.
The Export Development Corporation is not fulfilling its role as we had anticipated, and we in this party believe that the EDC should assist small businesses to enter this field and should favour-in fact, I am prepared to use the word "prefer"-Canadian small business and Canadian-owned corporations as opposed to foreign subsidiaries. Last year, for example, of those identifiable only 13 Canadian exporters benefited from the $283 million in long-term financing provided by EDC. Out of those 13, nine were foreign subsidiaries. These are pretty important statistics.


Mr. Gillespie:: And thousands of Canadian suppliers, small part suppliers.


Walter David Baker: I appreciate the interruption from the minister. I am not suggesting that thousands of suppliers did not benefit. I think this is a misinterpretation of what I said. All I am saying, and I think most members of the House will agree, including those who support the minister, is that at this time, in the context of our own economic situation in this country, an emphasis ought to be put upon the development of Canadian-owned small business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: And, Mr. Speaker, there ought to be a review of the operations of the EDC to see if a concentration has not, inadvertently or otherwise, taken place with respect to its operations that has resulted in the defeat of what I think is a generally acceptable Canadian objective.
My colleague from Scarborough East mentioned the work and undertakings of the Industrial Development Bank, and how it has, in fact, gone the other way. The Industrial Development Bank has been a fine example, in terms of concept in any event. I have some question about some of the terms and conditions under which it grants loans because its failure rate indicates either very astute investors or else the fact that the bank is not taking many

March 14, 1973
Export Development Act
risks. This Industrial Development Bank has assisted over 16,000 customers who borrow small amounts of money for the purposes set forth in that statute. It is doing a good job. I think the use of the Industrial Development Bank by Canadian businessmen is significant, compared with the rather centralized thrust of the Export Development Corporation. That is a statistical fact.


Alastair William Gillespie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Sharing as I do the concern of the hon. member for the development of small business, I wonder whether he is aware that the export credit insurance part of the Export Development Corporation has over 1,000 policies outstanding, 70 per cent of which cover exports of $250,000 or less? Surely, the support for these small-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The minister knows that he cannot make a second speech without closing the debate. If he wants to ask a question he has to seek permission from the hon. member who has the floor, rather than try to do it by way of a point of order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the minister's speech earlier, but I do not want to have to listen to a second speech now.


Alastair William Gillespie: Are you aware of that fact?


Walter David Baker: Of course, I am aware of it. It is contained in the report of the corporation, but it is only one part of the potential operation of the corporation. My point, Mr. Speaker, is that the government is really looking only at a very small aspect of the problem when it comes to this House and asks the House to increase the share capital of the corporation.


Alastair William Gillespie: We are doing more than that, Mr. Speaker.


Walter David Baker: Our concern with the Export Development Corporation is with its failure-it may be a failure in good faith, if there is such a thing-to harness its full potential. Our concern lies in the realization of what the Export Development Corporation can do as compared with what it has done.
As hon. members in all parties have said, there is no doubt that the chronic problem of Canadian business is the shortage of capital. My hon. friend from Scarborough East mentioned the advice given by the Royal Commission on Banking and Finance in 1964. A more recent picture is given by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce study called "Foreign Owned Subsidiaries in Canada, 1964-49." It examines the operations of all foreign held non-financial corporations in Canada with assets of more than $5 million.
In 1969, the last year of the study, these corporations reported net external funds of $353 million. Of this amount, $204 million came in the form of Canadian bank loans. What this means is that for the year 1969 nearly two-thirds of the money used in these transactions came from Canadian banks, and the total owed at the end of 1969 was $1.17 billion. I believe that the Export Development Corporation is guilty of the same bias. A large

percentage of its funding and its energy has been given to foreign controlled firms.
In the past year, the EDC signed long-term financing agreements with foreign buyers totalling $283 million. At the end of the year it had over $1 billion in outstanding long-term contracts. A review of that $1 billion, as I said, reveals that 50 per cent of it benefited only eight Canadian exporters, four of which are subsidiaries of American concerns. In sum I think it is fair to say that the government has helped large American-owned corporations retain control of the export business in Canada. That may not be what it intended, but that is the net effect of what has happened.
I think that a better case than the government has made could be made for putting $1.5 million of public money into the EDC. If foreign firms, most of them American, continue to get first crack at the loans of the Export Development Corporation, Canadian firms are thereby denied. Canadian manufacturers would like to become more active in the export field, but in terms of quantum they really get little help from the EDC. This is a sad state of affairs. I want you to understand, Mr. Speaker, that we are not calling for discrimination against foreign controlled firms, but as the hon. member for Scarborough East said, we are calling for a re-evaluation of our priorities as Canadians. Canadians will never benefit from any position of narrow nationalism. But that is not to say that a Canadian government or a Canadian parliament ought not to hold that it is worthy of it to recognize the needs of the Canadian business community.
In recognizing the needs of the Canadian business community, it is my respectful submission that we will also keep our eye on those 665,000 unemployed, that we will not forget that there is 7.3 per cent of Canadian workers out of work, that the object of the government, whether we are dealing with the EDC or otherwise, ought to be to use its best efforts to promote the development of Canadian small business, which is the greatest employer in this country, and that we ought to create in this country an atmosphere where Canadian business can do its own thing, as opposed to the government entering the field and doing the same thing for business people. I believe that this ought to be the proper thrust of this legislation, and not just of this legislation but of everything that is considered by this parliament. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we ought to reconsider the allocation of additional funds unless a Canadian preference approach is adopted by this corporation.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with a bill to amend the capital structure of the Export Development Corporation by increasing the advances to that corporation from $850 million to $1.5 billion. I am sure most members of the House of Commons are desirous of giving every assistance to business in this country to export its products. If it were that simple, the House would have passed Bill C-3 some time ago but of course it is not. The bill gives the House an opportunity to re-examine the Export Development Corporation, to consider its annual report and financial statement and its performance.
March 14, 1973

It becomes apparent that the corporation is involved with 43 companies; eight of them are major companies which have half the money now and pretty soon will have 64 per cent or 65 per cent of it. The corporation also has a fancy list of directors and a beautiful prospectus with pictures in four or five colours. One begins to wonder why a company with only 43 customers, eight of them major, has to spend money on offices in Ottawa and branches in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, why it wants $11 billion so that it can use 64 per cent of that amount to service eight companies! Mr. Speaker, four of these companies are owned by shareholders in another country.
The hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) raised the question of priorities and I shall comment on that later. Some time ago when I was analysing the question of export development, I asked some businessmen in Mississauga what assistance they received from the federal government with regard to foreign trade. One of them, and I will be glad to give the minister the name of the company, told me, "We don't get any help from Ottawa. The only place you can get help for trade in this country is from the province of Ontario because the province at least is concerned about small business. We are not a big company, we only make wheel barrows and concrete buggies but the province of Ontario made it possible for us to get going and we are now selling to Peru and other places." What is wrong with this government, Mr. Speaker, that it even permits the provinces to get involved in foreign trade? The trouble is that this government, and this minister, are not doing an adequate job. In many cases, small business has to look to the provincial minister of trade for assistance. I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, is this the way our export trade should be developed? Is this government only interested in the big, the powerful, the foreign-owned?
Some hon. members have said that we are really not concerned about the fact that some of the loans have been made to foreign corporations but, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the proportions and we are concerned that the interests of Canada and Canadian businessmen take second place in the deals that are organized. It seems that it is easier for the Export Development Corporation to deal with a few large companies than with small companies. It is one of the tragedies in Canada today that these few large companies are foreign-owned. It is easier to deal with them because they know what it is all about- they know the game. They can afford to send their lackeys to Ottawa; they can afford to stay in the fine hotels and entertain members of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce; they can afford to fight their way through the maze of government offices; they can afford to calculate how to qualify on a project and they know that this government is prepared to play ball with them and is spending great amounts of money. How many customers are serviced by these great amounts of money, Mr. Speaker; just 43?
A lot has been said about small business, Mr. Speaker, and I want to point out that through the Industrial Development Bank assistance is available to small business at an interest rate pretty close to ten per cent. I want to point out, too, that the Export Development Corporation is prepared to lend money to large companies at 7 per cent so that they can finance foreign trade. How can we justify
Export Development Act
treating the small businessman like this when he has contributed so much to the development of Canada? He cannot afford to lobby or entertain, but he pays 10 per cent and the big corporations pay 7 per cent. This is the kind of thing we are concerned about.


Alastair William Gillespie: Is the hon. member aware that the loan is made to the buyer and not to the seller? There is no loan to the Canadian customer; it is made to the foreign buyer.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is very interesting. I am delighted that the minister has pointed out that he is prepared to lend to Canadian businessmen at 10 per cent and to foreign businessmen at 7 per cent. That is the kind of attitude we expect from this government.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You hanged yourself there, Alastair. Any other gems?


Alastair William Gillespie: Well, he hasn't got it straight yet.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, this corporation compares to some extent to a corporation in the United States called the Export-Import Bank. That corporation has a different method of operation to some extent because it does not put up all the money but only a portion of it, approximately 30 per cent, and approaches the private sector for the balance. We have pretty significant and large private banks in Canada. Indeed, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, in terms of size and capital structure, rank high among the world's banks. It seems strange to me, and to other members on this side of the House, that only some $20 million has been supplied by Canadian banks and that the balance of the finances of this corporation come directly from this government. I think one can say this: this corporation is being lazy. It is not going onto the street and looking for the money with which to finance exports in the normal course. It finds it easier to take money from the taxpayer and make long-term loans with its own money. It does not operate as a bank or exchange department; it operates the easy way, by sitting back and using its own money. When it runs out of money, it comes crying to parliament for more. It could easily go to the various chartered banks of this country and work out some insured loan participation arrangement; but it is easier to operate as it now does.
Perhaps the reason for its actions is that it insists on lending money at rates lower than those used by the banks; perhaps that is why large foreign corporations and multinational corporations of reputation come to this government for financial assistance. The financial assistance available here is perhaps cheaper than credit assistance available anywhere else. I suggest that multinational corporations know how to look after imports and exports and sales from one branch to another. Perhaps the whole organization of this corporation needs overhauling, since it seems that the foreign business community and large corporations are treating this government and this development corporation as an easy mark.
In our examination of this bill we should be examining the entire principle behind the establishment of the Export Development Corporation. We should know exact-

March 14, 1973
Export Development Act
ly how it is operating on behalf of the Canadian people. If the Export Development Corporation and the government wish to demonstrate that they are not wedded to the idea of assisting only large corporations, I suggest they should consider establishing a department within the corporation whose primary function would be to go across the country, talk to small businessmen and organize exports for them. That kind of thing is done in the province of Ontario; perhaps the minister would not think of that. Nevertheless, that is how it ought to be done.
The activities of such a small business department could be instrumental in improving the balance of payments position of Canada. Such a department could assist Canada in establishing a more diversified pattern of trade. I am not pleased when I hear about one big sale to Yugoslavia or one big sale to Mexico. These are just one shot deals. What we need in export sales in continuing, repeat business. Earlier I talked about the sale of wheelbarrows. That is the sort of business we need, because we will sell some wheelbarrows this year, some next year and some the year after. Credit arrangements could be revolving and we could develop continuing business. As I said, what disturbs me most about some of these large sales is that they are one shot deals. This is not the kind of business that the corporation ought to go after. Sure, it looks good on the balance sheet and on the books. Sometimes the corporation lends $100 million. What we really ought to do, as I said, is develop continuing business, continuing roll-over trade. We could do that if we spent our time and effort looking after the interests of small business.
Finally, I want to repeat some of the things said by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse), because I think they bear repeating. I think it is time for some rethinking. We must think again, not only about the government program we are presently considering, but about other government programs. It is time that we considered again the activities of this corporation. The Export Development Corporation very shortly, if this bill passes, as it may, will have $1.5 billion in circulating funds for a five-year period. The corporation is growing. Soon, a great deal of the money of Canada will be tied up in exports for five years. I suggest we must give serious consideration to a more rapid roll-over of funds. The government and the corporation must give serious consideration to borrowing money, or to allowing or encouraging private or international banks to assist in the financing of projects. Perhaps this corporation could give certain guarantees and take only a small piece of the action for itself.
We must examine our priorities whenever we examine any legislation. After all, one of the major reasons for encouraging exports is that we hope to create job opportunities for Canadians. When one looks at the fact only 43 corporations are involved, with eight corporations using 64 per cent of the money, I think it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is time we re-examined this program and reassessed its impact on jobs. Further, it is time we reexamined this program and considered it in terms of Canadian ownership. Also, it is time we re-examined the activities of this corporation in terms of the total development of Canada.
Often-I throw this thought out to the minister-credit helps in the sale of a commodity; yet, in many more cases, it is the price that counts. The foreign buyer is no different from any other buyer. He looks around to see where he can buy cheapest. It is time this government said to business in Canada, "What can we do to make business in Canada easier for businessmen; what can we do to remove the innumerable forms? How can we lower a corporate tax rate that is higher than that of any of our competitors?" Our bank rates and interest rates are higher, in many cases, than those of our competing countries.
Perhaps if we made business conditions easier for businessmen and used that $1.5 billion to cut the cost of doing business in Canada, which would reduce the total costs business must pay in Canada, we could reduce our prices on the export market. In that case perhaps we would not need to indulge in long-term credit to the extent that we now do, since our prices would be competitive. Japan, Mr. Speaker, does not rely on credit; it relies on sharp business and sharp pencils when the order books are opened. I suggest we can best develop our export trade by going out with our order books and using very, very sharp pencils. Perhaps that is the kind of approach the Export Development Corporation ought to adopt.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to say a few words about Bill C-3 and about the economic situation.
We have to concentrate on activity outside Canada in order to make business work inside Canada, and Canadian industries develop and progress; we have to create incentives abroad so that Canadian manufacturers can sell their products abroad.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if that really is the best solution. I believe that the prime solution is to do all in our power to give Canadian consumers exclusive rights or at least priority on Canadian products. Canadians certainly do not have such priority because they lack the means of exercising their right to priority on Canadian-made goods.
What we should be exporting, Mr. Speaker, is our surplus. What we are exporting is the main bulk of our production, and at the same time we supply safeguards to foreign companies that buy our goods, in the hope of making sure that we will sell our Canadian products.
Mr. Speaker, we are always talking about helping small industry in Canada to develop. If we are to help small and medium industries to develop, certain incentives must be found. Several incentives have been applied to help industry, and they may have helped one sector of industry, but small and medium industries have scarcely been able to take advantage of these incentives.
Mr. Speaker, small industry does not have the means of taking out loans at reasonable rates of interest.
The government was kind enough to pass legislation enabling small business to borrow $25,000 at a quite reasonable interest rate. This was appreciated by small business, but it did not contribute to assist them properly because $25,000 does not go very far. As a matter of fact,

March 14, 1973

when a businessman needs machines costing $15,000 or $18,000 each, a loan of $25,000 is not enough because he cannot enlarge his business with such a small capital.
One could say that it is still possible to resort to the Industrial Development Bank, which can doubtless help small businesses. In fact, the IDB indirectly helped small industries which cannot affort to borrow from other banks. The IDB also finds that guarantees are not satisfactory and it almost always refuses loans to small businesses. Then, the latter find themselves in a sad plight.
I suggest, in order to really assist small businesses, that we enable them to borrow up to $100,000 instead of $25,000, and at a very reasonable interest rate, such as 5 4, 6 or 6 i per cent. This would be reasonable and very much appreciated by small businesses.
Then, if we want our industries to be productive, we must enable them to do so and give them the necessary means. When they are given means to produce, they employ people who earn wages, and these industries are thus more likely to sell their products at home because the people who are working have the necessary purchasing power to buy some of the products manufactured by these small industries. There is a tax law which is detrimental to the small and medium industries. Small industry is enjoying some tax relief, but it is not sufficient to help its development in a normal way. The income tax legislation which was adopted by the 28th Parliament is greatly detrimental to small industry which is unable to hold on to its capital for development purposes.
The Industrial Development Bank is lending money at interest rates which are almost usurious, that is from 101 to 12 per cent. The smaller the enterprise, the less credit it has and the less it is in a position to pay high interest rates. So, the Industrial Development Bank is doing like all the others: exploiting the small industry through interest rates.
Furthermore, the assistance granted to small industry through all kinds of technical means is far from being sufficient because the Industrial Development Bank charges 12 per cent interest on its loans, and the small businessman must get into debt for almost $100,000 to obtain $20,000.
And after that the Industrial Development Bank takes the interests and the reimbursements are almost totally taxable. The small businessman has heavy reimbursements to make and heavy taxes to pay which puts him in a difficult situation. Quite often he is unable to pay the interest and the taxes imposed on his reimbursements in addition to his own taxes.
There is also the 12 per cent sales tax on all materials produced in Canada. The government is helping industry by simply levying a kind of indirect tax. In fact, this is not assistance but indirect taxation because if the industrialist can operate his industry for at least 4 or 5 years he will have reimbursed his total debt to the government and the balance is a net profit for the latter.
This assistance, mainly as regards small business, is not truly realistic; we could improve the situation and provide more assistance to small industries through other means.
Export Development Act
We should also adopt a tariff legislation which would better fit the reality of the current market and be tailored to our industries' needs. Until now several reviews have taken place but more remain to be done to enable Canadians to export their surplus. These factors are essential to stimulate the industries and their growth.
Mr. Speaker, 90 per cent of the grants have been paid to Canadian enterprises; in other words, 90 per cent of the small businesses still belong to Canadians. In order to maintain those small enterprises, we will have to fight still more, to make other incentives or other means available to the Canadian people to unable them to exist, because the small business owner is now going through an economic regression. As a matter of fact, there have never been so many bankruptcies. A great number of small enterprises are driven to bankruptcy, as they are unable to sell their products because those who buy them are insolvent and often go bankrupt. Those small industries have to bear the consequences of those bankruptcies.
If we are able to grant incentives so as to promote the sale of products to foreigners, we should also be able to establish some safeguards to protect Canadian industries against insolvent Canadian creditors, on account of whom astronomical sums of money are lost by small business owners and even by the government, in taxes of all kinds.
When governments have to be among creditors, when bankruptcies happen, they have to take their share of the loss as well as the others; that kind of loss is more easily assumed by governments than by small taxpayers. Now the latter would surely need appropriate measures that would give them some protection as to the sale of their products to the Canadian people; as a matter of fact, a great number of Canadians buy products for which they are unable to pay. The small business owner has to bear the burden and a chain reaction follows whereby a great number of small industries must close down.
A current regulation stipulates that the industrialist who buys $50,000 worth of machinery can obtain government loans; but if the machinery costs less than $50,000, the small industrialist cannot avail himself of the benefits offered by the government.
However, for the smaller industries, a $50,000 purchase is a lot. Many are unable to get into debt for $50,000 though they would ' need machinery. Many would buy $10,000, $12,000 or $15,000 worth of machinery a year, but they cannot afford it.
On the other hand, if government aid was more efficient and if the amount of assistance available to the small enterprise was lowered, to $5,000 from $50,000 for instance, this would mean an incentive not any costlier for the government. In fact, if it really intends to solve the unemployment problem, the government can certainly make more substantial loans available to solvent industries, a good number of which could produce valuable goods needed by Canadians or readily exportable but, on the other hand, many of them cannot develop on account of the conditions I have just mentioned.
And if we intend to maintain our economy afloat such small industries must operate at reasonable cost. If we want to sell abroad, we must come up with competitive prices, since prices govern the market. And if we fleece

March 14, 1973
Export Development Act
the small or medium industries through taxes, transportation tariffs, higher gasoline prices, municipal, school and other taxes, we keep on stifling them because it is rather difficult to produce cheaply what is necessary if we want to sell. And if we want to sell at low prices, the first thing to do is to establish reasonable interest rates for industrialists.
Secondly, we must grant these industries every possible incentive, allow them to benefit from grants for instance, and lower the $5,000 minimum which may be borrowed because this measure is of no great help to a small business. And if this amount is lowered to $5,000, many small businessmen will benefit.
Thus, small businesses could produce more cheaply and governments could perhaps lower the 12 per cent tax, abolish all the taxes which boost the cost of merchandise and thus decrease their cost. If the cost of merchandise was lower, we could export much more because our prices would also be lower. In return, we could manufacture in greater quantity, which would enable us to reduce the unemployment rate and stabilize our economy.
In order to do so, we must be realistic and not consider the small businessman as an executive with all the necessary capital who can be required to pay any tax. We should not then increase prices endlessly and think that the small businessman will be able to cope no matter what.
We have all kinds of programs to help industries but it seems that almost all industries are worse off after receiving such aid than before, which means something is wrong. Other solutions must certainly be sought, and of course they must be realistic.
Mr. Speaker, we should be concerned about all those things. We are not against the bill, we are not opposed to making capital available to foreigners for the purchase of Canadian products since we want Canadians to sell as much as possible. However, we also want Canadians to be able to produce at low cost. That is one of the first aspects hon. ministers should concentrate on to find solutions.
Markets are easily found, industry can easily operate when products can be sold at low prices.
However, in the present economy of constantly increasing prices and soaring costs, it becomes very hard for small industries to compete with the big ones.
If we really want to help small industries, if we really want them to exist, we must find some sort of a corrective; we really must amend regulations and acts concerning the help to the small industry to assist it efficiently so it can prosper.
The present type of help is somewhat contrary to the facts. We are actually offering help to some foreign countries so that they can buy Canadian products, but we must not forget that if we export, we must also import. If we must import and export, it does little to improve the Canadian economy, the gross national product.
If we produce for $114 billion, Mr. Speaker, but import for $80 billion and export for the same amount, nothing is changed in the Canadian economic system. This does not alter the situation. If we want to export, it is necessary to import. And this is not a real solution. The answer is to

enable Canadians to make all possible purchases, to consume as much as possible in Canada to make our industries work. We should export surpluses in exchange for goods we are not producing. Exports should serve this purpose only. We are far from using our exports to this end.
We try to produce, to export but not to import, which becomes rather difficult because if we only sell our products without buying anything from other countries, we will not do it very long. Those countries will turn their backs on us and they will deal with other countries with which they will be able to trade.
As to foreign countries, we should trade with them to meet the essential needs of our economy and theirs.
Thus, to be logical, it is necessary to develop Canadian markets and to put the necessary purchasing power in the hands of Canadians to enable our industries to sell the biggest part of their production in Canada. It is necessary to further stimulate the production and consumption by increasing the purchasing power of taxpayers on par with the industrial and economic growth of our country.
Mr. ]ohn Harney (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) had to give up speaking sometime ago because, as he said, he was taken with a rather bad cold and his voice gave way. I would like to suggest that he was not being absolutely true to fact, because I suspect that he was moved to the point of choking by the admiration he had when it came to the prospect of the beautiful co-ordination that existed between the centres of high finance in this country and the directors of this corporation as indicated by a reading of the Export Development Corporation report. I am quite sure that is really what happened to him. He was choked with emotion when he looked at the startling involvement of this corporation. Following upon that was the information given to us by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn), who was looking at the beautiful pictures contained in this report.
This is indeed a very handsome report, loaded with coloured pictures, not only of members of the board, but with those which give us some idea of projects reportedly supported by the Export Development Corporation. For example, on page 11 is a picture of a beautiful seaside resort, something which would tempt members of this House today. In the background we have palm trees, and girls walking beside the pool, and it has the following caption:
Interest in tourist facilities in the Caribbean is very high among Canadian investors. One third of the inquiries received for EDC Foreign Investment Insurance are for investments to be made in that part of the world.
This is very interesting when we consider the kind of concern presented a few days ago by church leaders in Canada asking for participation in the development of under-developed countries. It is surprising that this is the kind of project in respect of which the EDC is receiving inquiries.
However, let us remember that these inquiries received by the EDC are in respect of foreign investment insurance
March 14, 1973

rather than loans. There is a clause in the act controlling the EDC which allows that corporation to provide insurance to Canadian investors who want to invest abroad in areas which may not be entirely stable. As a matter of fact, I think the act specifies areas in which there may be revolution, riot and war. If, rather than assisting underdeveloped countries in very great need of basic industry and other development, Canadian investors show interest in areas of the kind pictured at page 11, then we may expect war, riot and other civil disturbances.
Let me look at other pictures in this booklet that are very handsome, indeed. On page 26, we have a picture of a more serious nature. It is a picture of a pulp mill, specifically a kraft pulpmill in New Zealand. The caption reads:
EDC made a $10.3 million loan to cover the sale of Canadian services and equipment for expansion of a kraft pulpmill and newsprint project in New Zealand. The EDC financing covered 90 per cent of the export value of the sale.
It seems to me that one of the rationales of the EDC is the creation of jobs in Canada. I have travelled around this country and have seen some kraft pulp mills. It might occur to some of us, or indeed some of those in the EDC, that this is an industry in Canada in which jobs could be eliminated by designing these pulp mills in such a way they can produce the products overseas. We can eliminate jobs in Canada in these pulp mills. In this situation, may we not be allowed to ask ourselves if, by the practices adopted by the government of this country, we are not contributing to a state in Canada which in fact helps the foreign corporation?
Let me come back to the point of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. He was referring to the directors of the corporation. One is allowed to wonder, if not suspect, that there might be some kind of co-ordination. I do not say collusion, between directors of the Export Development Corporation and directors of large corporations in Canada. I was particularly interested in one picture, and I am looking at the picture of Mr. P. R. Sandwell, who is a director of the corporation and chairman of the board of Sandwell and Co. Limited, particularly when we connect him with others in the list of loans by the EDC.
Let me refer briefly to a publication called Canadian Pulp and Paper Industry which has linked Mr. Simons with Mr. Sandwell. You will see that he is associated there with H. A. Simons (International) Ltd. which was financed in respect of pulp mill equipment, and consulting and supervisory engineering services, for a project in Argentina to the extent of $12 million. Simons and Sandwell have been linked in the past as having been responsible for the engineering and design of about one-third of the paper mills built in the world since 1945. Let me quote from Canadian Pulp and Paper Industry:
"Worldwide, they know of Simons and Sandwell."
I suggest they also know of Simons and Sandwell in Ottawa. I do not want to dwell on this aspect because it may not be exactly surprising. The aspect of the Export Development Corporation on which I should like to dwell is the aspect concerning the kinds of loans and to what kinds of countries these loans are directed.
Export Development Act
I wish I had before me the report of the Export Development Corporation for 1972. As you know, Mr. Speaker, reports come late, so we must go to other sources for more current information. In the Globe and Mail in December there was buried in the business pages a little item which I should like to read. It states:
The Canadian Export Development Corporation will lend Brazil. ..
Note it states will lend "Brazil".
. . . $26.5 million to help that country buy electrical equipment in Canada.
"The corporation said the money will be loaned to Light-servigos de electricidade SA. Rio de Janeiro, a private Brazilian utility company.
"The loan is guaranteed by the government of Brazil. "Light-services must buy at least $23 million worth of transmission and distribution equipment from such companies as Canadian General Electric, Collins Radio, Westinghouse Canada, Canadian Marconi and others under the agreement."
You will notice that all of these companies are Canadian because they somehow have the name "Canada" or "Canadian" and we can therefore believe they are Canadian companies. But, let us note the first sentence which states:
The Canadian Export Development Corporation will lend Brazil $26.5 million to help that country buy electrical equipment in Canada.
However, if we look more closely at the transaction we do not find that the Export Development Corporation is lending Brazil, specifically, a sum of $26.5 million but is to lend it to Light-servigos of Brazil. What kind of a corporation or a company is Light-servigos which is known, by the way, in Brazil simply as Light. The Portugese name of this company covers a firm which is owned to the extent of 83 per cent by Brascan, a massive company controlled in Canada although the majority of its shares are held in the United States. We have an inkling now of what is really happening. What appears at first to be a loan to a country in need of development money that it may buy our Canadian products turns out to be a loan to a private company. Then, we discover that that private company in turn is owned by a rather large Canadian company, a rather well-known company, which has acted from time to time in the past as a farm club for putative Liberal cabinet ministers, or vice versa for Brazilian Traction directors.
So far we are beginning to receive some information which is of value to us. However, the thought of Canadian money going to Brazil still might strike some compassionate hearts as a good thing because Brazil is a country which is in need of development. Let us look at the social development there has been in Brazil over the past ten years. There is a certain gentleman named McNamara who could not be counted as one of the world's subversives, a friend of the late President Kennedy, who now, I think, is involved in an institution called the World Bank. He noted that in Brazil the richest 5 per cent of the population saw its share of the national income rise during the 1960's from 29 per cent to 38 per cent, while the poorest 40 per cent saw its share drop from 10 per cent to 8 per cent. I know that we cannot make a direct connection between Canadian activity in Brazil and what is going on internally in that country, but it should be obvi-

March 14, 1973
Export Development Act
ous to us that our activities in lending money to a private company in Brazil, which in turn is owned by a Canadian company, are not necessarily helping out in respect of the problem of social equalization in Brazil.
I could mention a number of other countries to which the Export Development Corporation directs its largesse. I think if we added up all these countries we would not be able to put many of them in the list of the world's progressive, democratic nations. However, I can speak on that point at another time. There is another aspect of the Export Development Corporation with which I should like to deal, apart from its being a branch of our own Canadian imperialism. I refer to its function in carrying out our role as a nation in helping out the underdeveloped parts of the world. We have several entities in this country which appear to direct their interests to trade and to aid with the under-developed parts of the world. Several of these entities are government or government-controlled or government-owned entities.
Indeed, a few years ago there was a certain amount of concern in the cabinet of the time about co-ordinating the activities of these various entities because it appeared that some of them could be working at cross purposes. There was what I think was called an interdepartmental committee structured to bring all the external activities of the Canadian government together so that they could be coordinated. To give an idea of what was involved here, there was some consideration, for example, given to coordinating the activities of the Canadian International Development Agency with that of the Export Development Corporation because both agencies are involved in the matter of economic aid and economic assistance, as I believe it is called.
I shall give an example of the amount of involvement of CIDA. I have the report for 1970-71 of the Canadian International Development Agency before me. In a column at page 10 entitled "Appropriations and Authorizations" for 1971-72, we find these appropriations and authorizations broken into two major parts. First of all, we have appropriations and authorizations to multilateral agencies in such matters as international emergency relief and food aid. The total of these multilateral contributions is some $204 million, which is a respectable amount by world standards. Multilateral contributions are broken down fairly extensively later on in the publication in other columns. Below that, however, we have a second section which deals with bilateral assistance and there are two items: technical assistance in an amount of $43 million and economic assistance in an amount of $178.8 million. That is a large amount of money.
As a matter of fact the bilateral total, talking about economic assistance, amounting to $221.8 million exceeds the total of the non-bilateral contribution of $204.6 million. Even in terms of the amount we are talking about for the Export Development Corporation which has of course, a limitation on its lending capacity which is not what it will lend in any one year, we realize that this figure is indeed very large. The activities of CIDA in large measure are very much like the kind of activities in which the Export Development Corporation is supposed to be involved.

If we hesitate to believe that this is the case, we have the recent word of the president of the Canadian Export Development Corporation, Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie. I quote from an article which recently appeared in one of the newspapers in Canada, the Globe and Mail. I see it is a CP article so every newspaper carried it. It reads:
Paul Gerin-Lajoie, president of the Canadian International Development Agency, told the Montreal Board of Trade yesterday that "particular Canadian business enterprises would find it difficult if not impossible to remain economically viable without the purchases CIDA makes from them".
He goes on to point out exactly what CIDA has been able to do in order to help Canadian business. Indeed, he goes on to chide Canadian businessmen for not being as ready as they could be to trade with the third world, particularly the developing world. I will not go on to quote any more from Mr. Gerin-Lajoie because I think the point has been made that this CIDA function is very much like the function of the Export Development Corporation. If the EDC is designed to increase industrial expansion in Canada by increasing industrial expansion abroad, that is fine, I suppose, because it is working within its terms of reference, but we really should wonder whether CIDA is working within its terms of reference or indeed whether or not both corporations are working to those kinds of ends that are so often mentioned in speeches that come from cabinet ministers, especially when they are out of the House, ends that have to do with aid to developing countries.
I am sure that many heads in cabinet nodded with agreement, not with sleep, when they were addressed in these terms by the churchmen of Canada the other day. I quote from their brief as follows:
Today, there is a growing resistance against the economic growth model for development in the third world. Several developing countries are increasingly resisting the pressures of modern industrialization, especially where the cost is another form of economic colonization and dependence.
I suggested a while ago that a lot of the effort of the Export Development Corporation is our own form of Canadian imperialism in the third world. The brief goes on to read:
The realities of this resistance force all of us in the western industrial countries to critically re-examine our models for development. The third world resistance is telling us that the human cost of the economic growth model is too high. As an alternative, the third world is advocating development models based on the goal of balanced growth with an equitable distribution of income across the board.
So, if we are to co-ordinate our external economic activity, what we really should do is, first, bring the various entities, such as the EDC and CIDA, under one roof and preferably not under a Crown corporation roof, rather under the control of one minister so that we in the House can actively criticize the programs of these agencies. It is all very well to say that we are given reports with very pretty pictures indeed, but in most cases we have no idea from these reports exactly what the nature of these foreign involvements is and what these loans amount to.
For example, one of our agencies will tell us very religiously, as they do in the estimates for this year, exactly what kinds of grants and contributions to multilateral and
March 14, 1973

international assistance programs they are making. We can read down the list and find, for example, that we propose this year to give to the Society for International Development $5,000. It is herewith listed so that all members of this parliament and indeed the citizens of Canada can know exactly where our international development aid is going. But if we look on the same page, we find under grants for economic and technical assistance, $144,340,000 with no specification whatsoever, no clue at all as to where this money is going.
So, when it comes to aid, we can go over the program with a magnifying glass and we can question every detail. We know exactly what little church in what country is getting whatever bit of money to buy food. But when it comes to economic assistance, all we are given are lump sums without detail. We are not given details, we are given flossy reports with multi-coloured pictures but no breakdown of wliat the purpose of the economic assistance is or exactly to what kind of venture it is going. I think in the near future we should seek to bring together under one roof, as I suggested, all our external programs, programs of aid and of economic assistance and programs involving loans to foreign countries or foreign corporations, which in turn perhaps are simply corporations in Canada whether they be foreign or Canadian owned. Second, what we need is much more detail so that we know what is going on.
I should like now to go back to the report for 1971 of the Export Development Corporation. On pages 23 and 24, there is a listing of the countries and of the borrowers within those countries who have been helped by the Export Development Corporation, a list of the products, finance, exporting in Canada, date of contract, repayment terms, amount of financing, and so on. Some sums amount to $12 million, others to $9 million, one to the Union des Transports Aeriens in France for $2,700,000, and to the President of India $1,500,000. But then, at the end of page 24, under section 31 of the Export Development Act it says: "to the Imperial government of Iran, products to be financed". What are they? Various. What exporter? Various Canadian suppliers. What is the amount? $100 million. What other details? None. So what kind of scrutiny can we give this program in the House when we are only given such scanty information? One thing I can say now is that when this matter comes to committee we will expect to see just what kind of detail is available for members of the House.
There is another aspect of the export development program that we should consider. Where exactly in Canada are these exports produced? It is a very important question, because we have spent several hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few years to rid ourselves of the problem of economic disparity in Canada-I should say, "in order to rid ourselves" because we have not done it yet. The ministry in charge of that program is a little stunned right now because all the money it has spent over the past few years has not brought about the result that was expected; indeed, regional disparity is still with us. But this parliament went into the program in good faith because it believed that it was essential for reasons of natural and social justice, and essential for the principle of Canadian unity, that the wealth and productivity of this
Export Development Act
country should be directed equally to satisfy the needs of all sectors of the country.
We have here the Export Development Corporation. In the 1960's it dished out some $800 million-a fairly sizeable sum. Were these $800 million spent evenly across Canada with some respect for the needs of the less developed regions of our country? Not at all. Of the $800 million, $650 million went to Ontario and Quebec. I wish I had the breakdown for the two provinces because I suspect that the lion's share of the $650 million went to Ontario which is more in a position to take advantage of this kind of largesse than the province of Quebec. Here we have an aspect of our government in Canada acting at cross purposes with a ministerial program called DREE. We can call the Export Development Corporation our contra-DREE program or anti-DREE program. I tried to reverse or juggle the letters around a few days ago and I came up with EERD, and I only wish I could find some way of putting "W" in front, because then we would have something very telling and informative, for certainly something "WEERD" is going on here.
In this parliament we do not have a real understanding of what our economic ventures and economic activities add up to, and there are several accounts under which we could challenge the worth of the program of the Export Development Corporation. I know that some of my colleagues to my right dwelt at some length on the fact that multinational corporations were involved as recipients of the largesse of the Export Development Corporation. However, if you do not mind, Mr. Speaker, I will add just one more element. It is not even my own. It comes from the brief presented by the church leaders to the cabinet the other day, and I quote:
It is becoming increasingly evident that multinational corporations are having a dominant impact on development planning and trade patterns. We are acutely aware of this problem since Canada is a country with a large percentage of foreign control. This trend must be counterbalanced by other measures. For example, could the Canadian government expand our public importing systems in order to encourage imports from those countries that lack the sophisticated marketing systems of the giant corporations?
Let us talk for a moment about imports as well as exports. It is useless to pretend that we can only be dealing with exports in this world where import from and export from must be a two-way street.
I come back again to that country to which I referred a while ago, to look at our activities in terms of import and export trade between Canada and Brazil. For example, in 1970 imports to Canada from Brazil amounted to $49.3 million. Exports from Canada to Brazil in 1970 amounted to $87.4 million. Certainly next year, by the time Brascan gets its assistance from the EDC, exports from Canada to Brazil will be in even larger imbalance than the imports we get from that country.
You see, what we are doing essentially with the EDC is dealing with the top tenth of the world's industrial activity. We are doing almost nothing with that nine-tenths of the world that is submerged out of reach of that industrial activity, and not only out of reach of that activity, but out of reach of the benefits that come from it. So how can we, when it comes to speech-making time here, the equivalent

March 14, 1973
Export Development Act
of convocation time in university, stand up and make all these beautiful speeches about how we are out to help develop the underdeveloped world, when all we are doing is simply shoring-up the kind of industrial enterprise which suits the industrial giants of this country. We do nothing effective, in real and lasting terms, to help the third world, and those parts of the third world that are sorely affected, to pull themselves up from the economic desperation in which they find themselves?
I will end fairly soon, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure some people will be glad to hear that. But there is one point I wish to make now. It is not a particularly new point, but it is a point worthwhile making over and over again. What we have here really in the efforts and activities of the EDC is a sample of that very old capitalist technique- there, I have used the word-of running to government to get cheap money, of running to government to insure the risks when it is rather difficult or rather expensive to get money for investment on the normal investment market, or when there are no insurance companies that will take the risks, simply because they are bad or chancy risks.
This has always worked very well for those who understand the nature of the capitalist system. As economist Frank Park put it some years ago:
The ingenious idea was to finance on government advances and on the sale of government-guaranteed bonds while the promoting group kept all the common stock (absolute ownership and control) in return for 'services rendered.'
That is an ancient principle, and it has always worked very well for that sector of our economy which is in definite control of the economy as a whole. Here again we have the same procedures going on. Brazilian Traction-I am sorry, it is now called Brascan, that is its new avatar, but it is still the old Brazilian Traction-rather than going out on the market to borrow money at the going rates gets a loan, indirectly mind you, from the Export Development
Corporation at very good rates indeed, at 6 per cent or 7 per cent. With this loan, it can develop the capitalization it needs in Brazil, and can carry on its form of imperialism, and bring back very good dividends to its Canadian as well as American shareholders. And we, the people of Canada, have taken the risk, but we have none of the control.
You know, Mr. Speaker, in most of the provinces in this country we do not let private interests control the development of hydroelectric power. Even Conservative Ontario many years ago adopted the principle that the development of hydroelectric power should be in public hands. As a matter of fact, private development of hydro-electric power cannot be undertaken very much more in Canada, although it was done in the case of Churchill Falls a few years ago. But we allow and encourage our Canadian companies to go and do it elsewhere, and we, the public, take on the capitalization and all the risks,' while they make the profits.
Just recently there was an announcement to the effect that the British Columbia government would get into some kind of joint enterprise with Brascan to develop resources in northern British Columbia. But at least the British Columbia government had the wisdom to say, "For our part of the investment we want joint control. We want a piece of the action so that the people of British Columbia can get part of the return." Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to be involved in foreign enterprises could we not ask that the people of Canada get a piece of the action, get a piece of the control? Mr. Speaker, I notice that you are about to rise from your chair, and if you are going to call it six o'clock, may I do it for you?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday. March 15. 1973